Religion is a Great Impediment

[trivas7]

Given that religion is the predominant ideology that legitimizes unequal social relations, it's what must go first -- or at least questioned -- before most workers understand the claims made for a communist world.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Given that...", yes, but that is not given.

Two hundred years ago, religion was the predominant ideology that legitimized unequal social relations. Today, that role has been taken over by liberalism. Outside of the United States, I've never heard anyone make the claim that capitalism is justified on religious grounds. People justify capitalism on liberal grounds - freedom of the individual, economic efficiency, etc. If you ask the average person in the street why the rich deserve to be rich, she will not say "because they have God's favor." She will say "because they worked hard for their wealth."

Leftists fighting against religion are frankly stuck in an 18th-19th century view of politics.

[trivas7]

"Given that...", yes, but that is not given.
People justify capitalism on liberal grounds - freedom of the individual, economic efficiency, etc. If you ask the average person in the street why the rich deserve to be rich, she will not say "because they have God's favor." She will say "because they worked hard for their wealth."

Well, you haven't read your Edmund Burke. All stripes of conservative political thought ultimately comes from the ideology of religion. "Because they worked hard for their wealth" is quintessentially Calvinist theology.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It was Calvinist theology hundreds of years ago. Today it is part of secular liberal culture. Atheists believe it just as much as religious people.

Many ideas have religious roots. Socialism itself has religious roots. That doesn't change the fact that they have been completely secularized today, which means that they will be left untouched by anti-religious propaganda. You could persuade everyone that God doesn't exist, but that would do nothing to shake their belief that the rich deserve to be rich because they worked hard. It would do nothing to shake their belief that capitalism "generates wealth," or that it is the most "efficient" economic system.

[Glenn Beck]

The capitalist ideology par excellence has been a cosmopolitan secular liberalism for quite some time now. Religious institutions generally play a reactionary role but they lost their position on the cutting edge of capitalist ideological development ages ago. (If they ever had it)

[Kronos]

Socialism itself has religious roots.

It has metaphysical roots. The only thing that has ever stopped a society from consisting of ranks, and therefore different degrees of diplomatic power, were the notions of "fairness" and "rights". But both have no foundation outside of a system where such things are achieved and ascertained through power and by the administration of power.

They do not materialize out of nowhere....certainly not as reasonable concepts. They materialize because at some point a group deduces that such an arrangement would benefit the power of the whole group.

Further, man must of existed for millions of years with only a partially developed "consciousness", and therefore, perhaps, underdeveloped notions and feelings of justice and fairness. Social hierarchies were arranged around power centers and functioned through brute force. If it ever happened that all members made executive decisions concerning the fate and use of property, and all labored equally, it was only because productive capacity had to be increased (to increase vitality and survival odds), and because, consequently, no commodities existed which were not strictly used for their utility....rather than as aesthetic endowments..."accessory" commodities. Although communal property ownership was rare. Most members of high ranks made decisions regarding what was to be done, and by who, but also generally labored like everyone else. Only in more modern societies did governmental positions evolve which excluded any labor. Shamans and priests, for instance, were a different class then workers, even while leaders still participated in production but were above them.

Even without appealing to "god given rights", people may still try to justify such things through "reason" or through "logic". This may or may not be possible, but what is even less possible is that justice and rights are not provided by those who have the power to withhold such things through force.

[trivas7]

It has metaphysical roots. The only thing that has ever stopped a society from consisting of ranks, and therefore different degrees of diplomatic power, were the notions of "fairness" and "rights". But both have no foundation outside of a system where such things are achieved and ascertained through power and by the administration of power.

I don't know what you mean to say here. Are you saying that notions of "fairness" and "rights" is what stops society from becoming class divided? Are you saying socialist society operates from ideology just as capitalism does?


The capitalist ideology par excellence has been a cosmopolitan secular liberalism for quite some time now. Religious institutions generally play a reactionary role but they lost their position on the cutting edge of capitalist ideological development ages ago. (If they ever had it)
Beyond religion, how does capitalism ideologically legitimatize itself?