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

Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2009, 03:48
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 03 Feb 2009, 06:29
<SIGH> I don't think there's an Answer. Here's what I think, though (FWIW):

"A Spectre is haunting Marxism... the Spectre of Christianity" said Zizek.

Marxism explains the material world and the material world is the stuff most politics is made of. But there *IS* more than the material world. There is art, love, beauty etc. Who would deny these things exist?

Proof? Can anyone "prove" --by Marxist method-- that their Mother loves them or that a sunset is awesome? How do we explain pity, mercy, compassion and altruism? (Materially, I mean). Now some may undertake a good attempt at doing so. But others could say that this is just ramming a square peg in a round hole. God is NOT material or of this world. Thus people who seek him using those methods will rarely find Him. (Of course they can't 'discover' God). Sort of like trying to light a bonfire at the bottom of the sea.

In the end, here's the FACT: There will always be people that reject God. There will always be people that believe in Him and want to serve Him. Who can deny that? Even those who accept on faith (and, **ahem**, it is by FAITH) that religion will, eventually wither away would admit such a process would take centuries. (I do not believe that it will happen).

SO: Whaddaya gonna do? Will you atheist / materialist Socialists accept us? Or can we join together and work together? Can we be comrades? OR must we be sent off to concentration camps again to perish for our faith? (Thus giving us the League of Militant Atheist's promised "richer better life"). Is Socialism the next and greater phase of human development, bringing more freedom to humankind? Or is it a new, godless religion which will re-make mankind in its image and likeness by brute force: No matter if mankind wants it or not? There really are only these two choices.

Those who wish to come to some sort of "modus vivendi" regarding Christianity and Marxism-Leninism should check out the FAQs sites on < http://www.cpusa.org > website. (There's one listed on the right-hand column and another on the left). These may help you with an answer. Another angle to approach this Problem would be the book "Our Hope" ("O Nashe Upovanii") by the late Fr. Dimitry Dudko (do a Google search?). Father Dimitry was a loyal Soviet citizen but also an Orthodox Christian priest. His discourses on theism vs atheism are remarkable and thought provoking. So-much-so tht Brezhnev had him arrested, incarecerated and, we found out later, drugged into a "confession". Shameless!.

To those who disrespect the CPUSA: Please remember that there are legions of break-away sects and "true" Marxist parties out there from which to chose. I am not a member of the CPUSA but I admire their maturity, wisdom and willingness to admit error regarding people of faith and the CPs of the past. In this regard they follow the South African CP, Russian, Ukrainian and others.

Gapon
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 03 Feb 2009, 13:26
Quote:
Marxism explains the material world and the material world is the stuff most politics is made of. But there *IS* more than the material world. There is art, love, beauty etc. Who would deny these things exist?


There is a concept sometimes called "marxist aesthetics" that basically says that culture is a product of society and should be understood in terms of what social forces it represents in addition to the talent that went into creating it. It also says that culture can be a vehicle for moving society forward or backwards and that it should be moving society forward.

Our perception of these things is material too.

Quote:
Proof? Can anyone "prove" --by Marxist method-- that their Mother loves them or that a sunset is awesome?


I suspect that many parents and children do not actually love each other and are mistaking extreme familiarity with loving each other. I came to this conclusion by talking to different people and coming to the conclusion that since it is a societal mandate for parents and children to love each other, people just decide that whatever they're feeling must be the kind of love family's have. Some of the time it is closer to love but a lot of the time it isn't.

But anyway at most Marxism would care if mothers loved their children, not if A mother loved A child. Unless we're going to assume that all mothers love their children, no matter what their actual feelings are, even when they start treating them like a new pet, toy, or otherwise an object for their own betterment, then not ALL parents do, so then the individual child or parent has to figure it out as best as he or she can, if they want to know. They can do this by clearly defining what kind of relationship love is, trying to understand how that would manifest itself in a familial relationship, and then looking at their own situation and trying to draw what conclusions they can.

The second question does not even say what the author finds "awesome" about sunsets. So no, there can be no rational investigation into a claim that wasn't made clearly.

Quote:
How do we explain pity, mercy, compassion and altruism? (Materially, I mean).


I see this as the result of the overall shared interests of humanity and its interconnectedness (Materially, I mean). Some people are bound to catch on, at least in a vague way, and then they want to help others. The wonderful thing about these qualities is that they AREN'T some mystic, inexplicable thing, but part of the way we're connected. You can go outside and see it in the way people interact. It's part of what humans are, because we tend towards social organization.

Quote:
God is NOT material or of this world. Thus people who seek him using those methods will rarely find Him. (Of course they can't 'discover' God). Sort of like trying to light a bonfire at the bottom of the sea.


The author seems to be saying that Marxism must be abandoned to believe in the concept of a divinity. Ie, one must accept the premise that the material world can't be trusted for absolutely no reason at all, and then they can get the result they want (ie, belief in a divinity, "find god"). What the author doesn't take into account that logical consistency is not an indicator of truth. Liberalism is logically consistent but I don't believe in it. If idealism is logically consistent, so what? That's not a unique at all. Further, if it's a prequisite to decide in advance that one wants to "find god" and to next figure out what will make that belief most likely to arise, and THEN start looking, well, there's no reason to take beliefs arrived at in that manner seriously. I could do that with anything. I could say I want to "find racism," choose a method of analysis that makes racism the most logical conclusion, and get to work on applying it until I'm a racist, or pretty much any other belief.

Quote:
There will always be people that believe in Him and want to serve Him. Who can deny that? Even those who accept on faith (and, **ahem**, it is by FAITH) that religion will, eventually wither away would admit such a process would take centuries. (I do not believe that it will happen).


Oh, well he sure told me. I guess this is another situation were scientific analysis isn't worthwhile. Even though religious belief in a group is clearly a social phenomenon in the scientific sense. Forget that, he has his faith and can abandon scientific analysis whenever it conflicts without even trying to address the arguments.

Quote:
SO: Whaddaya gonna do? Will you atheist / materialist Socialists accept us? Or can we join together and work together? Can we be comrades? OR must we be sent off to concentration camps again to perish for our faith?


Basically, I agree with Lenin, who said that if a comrade is religious in his private life or even a priest, but consistently and sincerely supports the party in its goals and carries out his duties to the party, his religious beliefs leads to "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."

Quote:
Is Socialism the next and greater phase of human development, bringing more freedom to humankind? Or is it a new, godless religion which will re-make mankind in its image and likeness by brute force: No matter if mankind wants it or not? There really are only these two choices.


Again this shows either a total lack of understanding for the arguments about religions demise or a total disregard. Marxist have always argued against the attempts of some people to forcibly stamp out religion. What Marxism wants to do forcibly is the separation of church and state.

This is basically a poorly organized, emotional argument that fails to address the issues in a scientific sense, nor does it engage Marxism in a philosophical way.
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2009, 03:48
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 04 Feb 2009, 03:13
I did not say I was addressing this issue in a Marxist way or any other. Rather nothing other than my own fwiw opinion. That statement is at the very start of my last post. I am not (and will not) argue with people on this topic. Others have done so and decisons have been reached. I acknowledge one and others another.

Many socialists and marxists feel as my critic does. Many others do not. Many feel that what Lenin, Mao, Engles, Marx or whomever said is to be treated akin to religious dogma. Others do not; and are willing to re-examine past opinions in the light of past mistakes and their results: ie: one might say scientifically. . I think that Lenin's opinion on religion and socialism did a lot of damage. I think the fall of the USSR indicates that. Overwhelmingly Soviet people --believers and non-believers-- came to resent the way the State repressed and alienated the religious. There can be no doubt militant atheism played a part in the loss of popular belief in Soviet socialism. I have learned this reading contemporary Russian socialist literature, from discussions with Soviet emigres and from my own Soviet family.

I, personally, am for a Socialism that admits for the widest possible amount of human freedom. Sincere Freedom of Religion must be part of that. Anything else is tyranny.

I mentioned Fr. Dudko's book "Our Hope". Another good book offering a sober and factual opinion on this issue is "Fidel & Religion" by Betto. It is available from < http://www.leftbooks.com >. Here we see what the Cuban Revolution has learned about this issue (Hint: Believers are welcomed into the Party and all Churches receive ample funding).

Interested Christians can persue this issue further on < http://www.geocities.com/thechristiancommunistmovement >

Those who prefer "that Ole Tyme Bolshevism" (and I sincerely respect you & your POV even if I disagree) might like this site
< http://www.vkpb.ru > (There's an English Language page).
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 04 Feb 2009, 04:13
Quote:
I did not say I was addressing this issue in a Marxist way or any other. Rather nothing other than my own fwiw opinion.


Your opinion still has a way of analyzing and seeing the connections between people. You can't say "philosophy and science out the window, I think this." At the very least there's a philosophy to how you reached those conclusions... and if you're rejecting marxist philosophy, in whole or in part, there needs to be a justification and refutation, either in Marxism's consistency or in showing that Marxism did not correspond to reality. Unless you're dead set on choosing your opinions first and then choosing a method of analysis that will lead to it (in this instance, idealism), in which case I can't do anything other than point out how absurd that is.

Quote:
Many socialists and marxists feel as my critic does. Many others do not. Many feel that what Lenin, Mao, Engles, Marx or whomever said is to be treated akin to religious dogma. Others do not; and are willing to re-examine past opinions in the light of past mistakes and their results: ie: one might say scientifically.


If I agree with their argument and analysis, I am not treating it as dogma. This is a red herring insofar as your post is a response to posts in this topic, although I get that you might be trying to address arguments that you've heard other places. In any case, people can agree with their arguments without reducing the arguments to dogma, and you seem to not want to address those arguments ("I am not (and will not) argue with people on this topic. "), so you can't really accuse anyone of being dogmatic for agreeing with arguments that haven't been refuted.

Quote:
I think that Lenin's opinion on religion and socialism did a lot of damage. I think the fall of the USSR indicates that. Overwhelmingly Soviet people --believers and non-believers-- came to resent the way the State repressed and alienated the religious. There can be no doubt militant atheism played a part in the loss of popular belief in Soviet socialism. I have learned this reading contemporary Russian socialist literature, from discussions with Soviet emigres and from my own Soviet family.

I, personally, am for a Socialism that admits for the widest possible amount of human freedom. Sincere Freedom of Religion must be part of that. Anything else is tyranny.

I mentioned Fr. Dudko's book "Our Hope". Another good book offering a sober and factual opinion on this issue is "Fidel & Religion" by Betto. It is available from < http://www.leftbooks.com >. Here we see what the Cuban Revolution has learned about this issue (Hint: Believers are welcomed into the Party and all Churches receive ample funding).


The church in the USSR was tied in with the old state to a very large degree, much more so than in the US today, as a result of the feudal relations. This kind of role absolutely had to be repressed, and I believe that it was not oppressed enough (edit: There was actually some interference in the church in the Stalin era to get more support for the state, which I believe eventually led to a split in the church). However I do not think this oppression should have been turned onto individual religious people but instead on the church, and only then in specific instances where the church is acting inappropriately.

Lenin said "Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. " (my italics)

I agree in principle with Cuba's period of repression, followed by a greater period of liberalization in terms to the freedoms the church is allowed. I don't agree with Castro coming out and saying that the Catholic church is actually a good organization that deserves our support. I also do not agree with the church getting any state funding at all, as this violates separation of church and state. From the church's perspective, you could even say that this could lead to state interference in the message and organization of the church.

About welcoming religious people into the party... Lenin also said "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."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 04 Feb 2009, 04:20
Greg wrote:
If this article represents official CPUSA line, then they have certainly closed the chapter on their historical legacy and their reason for being. They ought to close up shop and let genuine Marxist-Leninists appropriate their name.


Reread the topic and saw this... the official CPUSA line is that a revolution is not necessary, and that the USA is democratic enough that they can come to power through being elected. I believe they still intend to draw up a new constitution etc (it wouldn't be the first time this country did that) but they have no intention of using violence unless the state calls in the military to disrupt elections.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 04 Feb 2009, 10:06
Quote:
to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule.


I don't know about that.

The biggest issue I have there Cata is church funding. How can it survive without (some) funding from the State? The church only survives now because of its relations with Capitalism, which of course won't exist any more in a Socialist society.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 04 Feb 2009, 14:05
Quote:

I don't know about that.


I agree with it, in the sense that there is always an exception to the rule but it holds true most of the time. Most Marxists are atheists. That doesn't mean that every Marxist has to be an atheist, but if a religious person isn't comfortable being in a minority in a Marxist group then they are not going to be comfortable being a Marxist. Personally, I do not mind being in and working with a group of religious people if I agree with what they're doing, so I don't think that's too much to ask of them.

Quote:
The biggest issue I have there Cata is church funding. How can it survive without (some) funding from the State? The church only survives now because of its relations with Capitalism, which of course won't exist any more in a Socialist society.


People can give the church money with their wages. Also, to give a history lesson, I know Jewish rabbis, who now are rabbis full time, used to ALWAYS have another profession to bring in their income. Being a rabbi was something they did just out of a desire to be the teachers of their religion, not a way to bring in income. I imagine even some of the religious like the idea of that.

But anyway, I would consider allowing the church to receive aid in getting land and construction, since these things would most likely not be privately available, but I don't agree with the state funding the church over a long period of time at all.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 04 Feb 2009, 23:27
Quote:
I agree with it, in the sense that there is always an exception to the rule but it holds true most of the time. Most Marxists are atheists. That doesn't mean that every Marxist has to be an atheist, but if a religious person isn't comfortable being in a minority in a Marxist group then they are not going to be comfortable being a Marxist. Personally, I do not mind being in and working with a group of religious people if I agree with what they're doing, so I don't think that's too much to ask of them.


Fair enough. I was thinking of Socialists in the broader context, not just Marxists.

Quote:
People can give the church money with their wages. Also, to give a history lesson, I know Jewish rabbis, who now are rabbis full time, used to ALWAYS have another profession to bring in their income. Being a rabbi was something they did just out of a desire to be the teachers of their religion, not a way to bring in income. I imagine even some of the religious like the idea of that.

But anyway, I would consider allowing the church to receive aid in getting land and construction, since these things would most likely not be privately available, but I don't agree with the state funding the church over a long period of time at all.


Priests and such having a regular job to supplement their income is a good idea, but my issue is with things like receiving a building to worship in and maintaining them. Religious groups are going to need some financial support from the State to do this. And what is to be done with Cathedrals?

I think some of what you saying could put our movement on the road to repeating some of the errors made in the early Soviet Union. If we want to encourage religious individuals to join us, we have to be prepared to accommodate their needs. Just as we would expect them to treat Marxists of an Atheist inclination with respect, we have to return the courtesy.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 05 Feb 2009, 01:43
Quote:
Fair enough. I was thinking of Socialists in the broader context, not just Marxists.


He was probably using socialists to talk about members of the Social Democratic Party, since he said that in 1905.

Quote:
Priests and such having a regular job to supplement their income is a good idea, but my issue is with things like receiving a building to worship in and maintaining them. Religious groups are going to need some financial support from the State to do this. And what is to be done with Cathedrals?


Like I said, I would consider building and land aid. I think they can maintain it themselves though... unless you're meaning things like an old church's water pipes giving out. I count that as construction too.

I think Cathedrals either should be seized and converted, or we should just stop having them built and leave them to be used as they are.

Quote:
I think some of what you saying could put our movement on the road to repeating some of the errors made in the early Soviet Union. If we want to encourage religious individuals to join us, we have to be prepared to accommodate their needs. Just as we would expect them to treat Marxists of an Atheist inclination with respect, we have to return the courtesy.


In this context...
What are the needs of atheists?
What are the needs of the religious?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 05 Feb 2009, 03:12
To be free and able to practice their beliefs (which need not conflict in a counter productive way).
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 05 Feb 2009, 03:42
And the beliefs of the religious just happen to involve needing 50,000+ dollars for an organ? I'm not buying it.

If people can't support their religious organization and keep it going on their own, I question how much they care about it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 05 Feb 2009, 04:19
Quote:
And the beliefs of the religious just happen to involve needing 50,000+ dollars for an organ? I'm not buying it.




I agree with you. I am only talking about ensuring religious groups have what they need to worship. That doesn't equate to the state supplying unnecessary things like $50,000 organs (which most churches live without anyway), only basics that they can't supply themselves like buildings and (in some cases) repairs.
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2009, 03:48
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 05 Feb 2009, 05:56
The idea that a revolution may not be necessary but that socialism may be obtained by the ballot-box is indeed the position of the CPUSA. (See < http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/ > Gus Hall's famous article on "Bill of Rights Socialism"). But didn't Marx himself say about the same thing about Holland and other western European countriesd at one time? I'm sure one of you will know...

I have to confess that I find the "plans" being made here for religion and religious people pretty funny! I mean: If the majority of the working class heard this conversation what do you imagine they'd think? I'd like to see how that would play in Harlem or the Bronx; the Deep South or Nigeria!

In most of the world (including the Russian Federation) religions DO NOT receive any state funding. Capitalism is NOT funding the Church. In fact, under all the various socialist societies that have existed religion continued to thrive (unless brutally persecuted; then it thrived underground). Overwhelmingly, religions are totally funded by their adherents. While many clergy are full time pastors others are full time pastors who also hold down other employment. No state is paying their salery except in the odd / rare European country. And then the wages ain't that great.

From your angle: The only society that really tried to force the Marxist-Leninist "plan" for religion was Albania. Hoxa is long dead and rotting. The Albanian churches, mosques and synagogues are open and full. Nikita Khrushchev once boasted he'd live to exhibit the last Russian priest in a museum. Hmmmm....

In Cuba is is an open secret that Fidel Castro has been attending Mass. Belarus' socialist leader, Alexander Lukashenko, too, has returned to the Church. Comrade Zyuganov of the CPRF is openly Orthodox and was the first political leader to greet the new Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill (who --it is well known-- is pro-Socialist). The Ukraine's Communist Party leader is in church now every Sunday.

There are those who believe that Marxism is a science and that over time it will --like any other science-- correct itself; adjust its teachings; make new discoveries and admit past error. Medicine, psychology, physics etc have all been able to do that. I'm sure that is what is happening with regard to Marxism and religion today. Not that Marxism now "believes" in religion. They are two differnt worlds, as I said before. But apparently many Marxists and Marxist parties have grown to see that religion is not what they once thought. And they are willing to be civil, respectful and accepting of religious people; joining together for a Better World.< http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/935/1/151 > There will be the odd hold-outs, to be sure. But then again there are "geologists" who belong to the Flat Earth Society, too! At one time Marxists sought to prove their (increasingly former) view of religion by the carrot. At other times by the stick. Here Stalin "asks" the Church to reconvene a Holy Synod. There Hoxa has priests shot and elderly nuns imprisoned. In some places light has dawned. In others the shadows still prevail.

Zizek's spectre of Christianity haunting Marxism is apparently alive and well!
Last edited by +Gapon+ on 06 Feb 2009, 03:30, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 05 Feb 2009, 07:31
Quote:
Capitalism is NOT funding the Church.


Not true from what I've seen in my country. There are plenty of business (intended to make profit) run by the various churches. And then there are the mega churches in the US funded by capitalists. Of course there are small churches which fund themselves, but if they are a mijority, it can't be a visible one.
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2009, 03:48
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 06 Feb 2009, 03:47
That may be... but the point is: When a society changes from capitalism to socialism religion adjusts to the new environment. In your country it sounds as if religion supports itself by making use of capitalism. But in socialist countries religion accepts the new situation, adjusts and continues on. So when socialism comes there....

Many Christians, feeling that a socialist society is much more Christ-like than a capitalist society, sincerely welcome the change. This was the case in Cuba. Of course there were those within the Church who did NOT welcome the Revolution and opposed it. That could have been due to the malice shown towards the Church (and believing workers) in other parts of the socialist camp OR due to a vested interest in capitalism on the part of some Christians. In time however the vast majority of religious Cubans came to support the Revolution. Castro has said some of the best contributors to the building of socialism on the island have been... nuns! (Again: See Fra Beto).

I cannot understand --but I respect-- those socialists who somehow feel that Marxism is written in stone and cannot change, improve, develop, admit past error etc. Who --for some reason-- appear to even despise the Gospel and its followers. I did not want to enter into a debate on this issue as I'd imagine all the debates could that be on this topic have been and can be located all over the socialist web. I only meant to comment --from a Believer's perspective-- on the "10 Worst / 10 Best" comments that head this topic. I hope my comments have at least caused some people to reconsider old prejudices vis-a-vis religion, religious people and socialism.

A Better World is Possible!
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 06 Feb 2009, 04:31
Fellow Comrade wrote:
I agree with you. I am only talking about ensuring religious groups have what they need to worship. That doesn't equate to the state supplying unnecessary things like $50,000 organs (which most churches live without anyway), only basics that they can't supply themselves like buildings and (in some cases) repairs.


50,000 is actually pretty cheap for an organ, counting installation. I think it would cost a lot more. Anyway, like I've said, I am willing to consider construction and land aid, and I count repairs as part of construction.

Gapon wrote:

I cannot understand --but I respect-- those socialists who somehow feel that Marxism is written in stone and cannot change, improve, develop, admit past error etc. Who --for some reason-- appear to even despise the Gospel and its followers.


Quote:
There are those who believe that Marxism is a science and that over time it will --like any other science-- correct itself; adjust its teachings; make new discoveries and admit past error.


Again, red herring. You have failed to demonstrate that Lenin's ideas are wrong. In fact, you've just stated that they ARE wrong with no explanation, and then said that people who don't acknowledge that are dogmatic. Forgive me for relying on logic instead of your word...

Quote:
But didn't Marx himself say about the same thing about Holland and other western European countriesd at one time? I'm sure one of you will know...


As far as I know, he didn't. I would appreciate a source if you have one.

Quote:

I have to confess that I find the "plans" being made here for religion and religious people pretty funny! I mean: If the majority of the working class heard this conversation what do you imagine they'd think? I'd like to see how that would play in Harlem or the Bronx; the Deep South or Nigeria!


The majority of the working class seems to find it funny that there's still a communist party. There are quite a lot of backwards ideas now.

Quote:
In most of the world (including the Russian Federation) religions DO NOT receive any state funding. Capitalism is NOT funding the Church. In fact, under all the various socialist societies that have existed religion continued to thrive (unless brutally persecuted; then it thrived underground). Overwhelmingly, religions are totally funded by their adherents. While many clergy are full time pastors others are full time pastors who also hold down other employment. No state is paying their salery except in the odd / rare European country. And then the wages ain't that great.

From your angle: The only society that really tried to force the Marxist-Leninist "plan" for religion was Albania. Hoxa is long dead and rotting. The Albanian churches, mosques and synagogues are open and full. Nikita Khrushchev once boasted he'd live to exhibit the last Russian priest in a museum. Hmmmm....


I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The first paragraph seems to be agreeing with my post and with Lenin's assertion that religious organizations "should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state," but in tone you act like you're contradicting it. Then I have no idea what the second paragraph means.

Quote:
In Cuba is is an open secret that Fidel Castro has been attending Mass. Belarus' socialist leader, Alexander Lukashenko, too, has returned to the Church. Comrade Zyuganov of the CPRF is openly Orthodox and was the first political leader to greet the new Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill (who --it is well known-- is pro-Socialist). The Ukraine's Communist Party leader is in church now every Sunday.


That is irrelevant- I don't care about the personal habits of leaders, but about their line. Lenin said that religious people were welcome in the party, so I see no contradiction if some of those people are religious and in a communist party.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 06 Feb 2009, 04:41
Quote:
That may be... but the point is: When a society changes from capitalism to socialism religion adjusts to the new environment. In your country it sounds as if religion supports itself by making use of capitalism. But in socialist countries religion accepts the new situation, adjusts and continues on. So when socialism comes there....


I agree in general, but all the same, I wanted to point out that the church has aligned itself with Capitalism as a means to fund itself (but not in all cases of course). There are people involved in the church who have done quite well for themselves as a result of its relations with Capitalism or are actually Capitalists themselves. They can expected to resist adaptation to a new environment which deprives them of their status. This will inevitably cause some problems. Remember that a great deal of anti-Communist propaganda comes from a religious point of view.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion that the church will adapt to a Socialist environment. Clearly it can. I'm just pointing that it will not be an entirely smooth transition. Somehow, the people fighting against change will need to be removed from their positions of influence in the church.

Quote:
I cannot understand --but I respect-- those socialists who somehow feel that Marxism is written in stone and cannot change, improve, develop, admit past error etc.


If those people don't accept the need to adjust theory according to changing circumstances, they aren't Marxists. It's that simple. Marxism is a scientific analysis of society and science is supposed to be open to better theories, but, it is important to make clear that not all new ideas are better than what is currently accepted. Anti-revisionism isn't dogmatic and unwilling to change, but accepting of this. Marxist-Leninism is still generally accepted because no better analysis has come along yet, only extensions on Lenin's own work. Maoism for example claims to be an extension.

If you personally question some element of Marxist theory and feel you have a better alternative, you need to demonstrate it in Marxist terms before other Marxists will take it seriously. That is basically how things work in the scientific community and I think Marxists are correct to take the same approach. Science is not by nature an anti-religious conspiracy. It is just a universal method used for investigation and analysis. There is no reason for religious people to be afraid of embracing it, especially if Materialism and Metaphysics are assigned to dealing with separate things.
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2009, 03:48
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 06 Feb 2009, 06:34
FELLOW COMRADE: I do not think we are disagreeing at all.

CATA: I keep sensing that you want to "argue". I do not. I only posted personal thoughts and opinions, period. Not any sort of "challenge". I hope you understand.

I am certain, however, that Marx did indeed say that socialism might be obtained by the ballot box and I believe he said that to a convocation of the International Workingmens' Association in Holland. I promise that I will keep an eye out for that and let you know when I find it.

Easier for me to find is an interview Marx granted to a London journalist who asked him about his "militant atheism". His response is very telling. I'll try to give you the referenced quote to that, too!

NOW FOR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT:

What is your opinion(s) regarding the "Stalinism vs Trotskyism" mega-event within the socialist movement? Any thoughts, comments etc on the CWI ("Committee for a Workers' International")? Is there a place you know of on soviet-empire where this is better discussed?

Thank you!
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8189
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 06 Feb 2009, 20:36
Quote:

CATA: I keep sensing that you want to "argue". I do not. I only posted personal thoughts and opinions, period. Not any sort of "challenge". I hope you understand.


Trying to learn is not a challenge. Trying to discuss ideas is not a challenge. If you do not want to discuss a claim, I don't know why you made it in the first place, why you keep making it, and why you keep responding to me. I do find it strange, however, that you are so certain about your ideas that you denounce people who disagree with you as anti-scientific without being willing to help anyone see the error of their ways.

But anyway if you still will not address the idea, I will consider this a brick wall and back out.
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2009, 03:48
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 07 Feb 2009, 04:31
Sheesh! I wasn't aware that this was a "debate" site. I thought it was a discussion forum. I respond to you only because you respond to me. There were several comments made by several others regarding the "Marxism 10 Best / 10 Worst" article. For some reason you went after me. I am not a Marxist theoritician. I'm not even sure what kind of Marxist I am; if one at all. I said that but it didn't seem to matter. To better explain how I feel I posted a URL or two from Marxist sources. That's about it. "Political Affairs" is on-line and can be found via the CPUSA website. There's plenty of room there to discuss and debate the article's author. If you decide to do that let me know and I'll follow your discussion there.

Thanks!
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron