War on religion is revisionism.

[Comrade Akai]

...as is discriminating against other leftists who consider themselves religious, which is why I put this in Discrimination.

-video snipped, PM me for it from now on, & thanks Rjevan-

Removed the video, don't post info or pics publically which might threaten your personal security . If you want to play it safe follow red cat's advice. - Rjevan

[La Comédie Noire]

Do you have a transcription of this? It's kind of hard to make you out at times.

[Comrade Akai]

Do you have a transcription of this? It's kind of hard to make you out at times.

I have a transcript, I'll be able to add it into the description later once I get back to my computer.

[A.R.Amistad]

V.I. Lenin

"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 offense 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."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm glad I know the wisdom of Marx and Lenin dictates how I should view religion. After all, my political beliefs are completely based on interpreting a text rather than thinking for myself.

I like the general message. However, I think Marx and Lenin believed religion was a symptom of capitalism. Hence, it didn't need to be actively struggled against. By solving the real problem, it would wither away. I'm not sure if I agree, but it's an interesting though.

It's not a bad video. However, it does remind me of some troubling facts. Mainly, that your quotes from communist leaders will convince people similarly to how quotes from the bible will convince a theist. Leftists should require more than a quote to convince them on an issue.

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm glad I know the wisdom of Marx and Lenin dictates how I should view religion. After all, my political beliefs are completely based on interpreting a text rather than thinking for myself.

Please don't accuse me of hero worship just to try to discredit me. I'm just posting an example of where widely recognized leftists opposed the idea of "war on religion" and what there justification was. And, after all, this thread is addressing "revisionism."

[Invincible Summer]

Tbh, if my anti-religious stance makes others feel uncomfortable, I think that's their problem and not mine. After all, they're the ones that have to prove that their spiritual belief system is superior to the default humanistic, materialist worldview.

[Comrade Akai]

I'm glad I know the wisdom of Marx and Lenin dictates how I should view religion. After all, my political beliefs are completely based on interpreting a text rather than thinking for myself.

I like the general message. However, I think Marx and Lenin believed religion was a symptom of capitalism. Hence, it didn't need to be actively struggled against. By solving the real problem, it would wither away. I'm not sure if I agree, but it's an interesting though.

It's not a bad video. However, it does remind me of some troubling facts. Mainly, that your quotes from communist leaders will convince people similarly to how quotes from the bible will convince a theist. Leftists should require more than a quote to convince them on an issue.

Actually, thanks for this, comrade. You just gave me an idea for another video.:)

I agree, by the way.

[Rjevan]

...as is discriminating against other leftists who consider themselves religious
This is not really an argument. I might as well say the sturggle against racism it's discriminating against leftists who hold racist views or the struggle against sexism is discriminating against sexist leftists. You think that such people are no leftists and that my examples are something entirely different? While I agree with you on the first point I reply to the second: both, racism and sexism, are contained in religion.

Now on the video. Lenin refered to the situation in Russia, based on the concrete historical condition at that time. Since you quote Lenin's "The Attitude of the Worker's Party to Religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm)" I'll refer directly to this source, too. Lenin gives us an example about the situation at that time (all bold emphasis mine):


The proletariat in a particular region and in a particular industry is divided, let us assume, into an advanced section of fairly class-conscious Social-Democrats, who are of course atheists, and rather backward workers who are still connected with the countryside and with the peasantry, and who believe in God, go to church, or are even under the direct influence of the local priest—who, let us suppose, is organising a Christian labour union. This is nothing hypothetical at that time but a very likely situation. Lenin goes on saying that in such a case every genuine communist would of course support the Christian union in a strike because religion is caused by the social conditions and thus the struggle against capitalism has absolute priority and only through eliminating capitalism religion can be eliminated, too. But what we see from this is that religion is by no means desired and should never be encouraged, the socialists themselves have to be "of course atheists" while only the "rather backward workers" are accepted to hold religious views.
You quote Lenin saying that religious people should "not be persecuted… but invited into the party and educated about communism." Quite true, but what do you think "educated about communism" means? Teaching them about the joys of sunday morning mass or the importance of loving your God? Quite clearly not:


...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.


Then you state that Engels condemned the Blanquists because their tactics rather fuel religion than "prevent it from dying out". "Dying out" is quite a clear term and should leave no doubt about the communist stance on religion. Engels criticises more:


Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion
You say communism is not hostile towards religion. This is not true:

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.

There is more of the same kind in "Socialism and Religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm)". Of course, as every Marxist should know, religion isn't the core of the problem and won't dissapear untill this core does, but religion definitely is a part of the problem. The conditions have changed in most parts of the world, at Lenin's times most workers in Russia were religious, I doubt this is the case today and I can assure you that it isn't the case in Germany. And while Lenin states that the party "may" allow a priest to enter the party "under certain circumstances" it should be clear that the "recruiting and educating" means to free the religious party members of their anti-Marxist believes and not to encourage them or ignore their irrationality. Everybody who claimed the contrast would be as "clearly a revisionist" as one who claimed that the struggle against religion should be our primary task.



Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation.

...But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned.

...So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

[red cat]

To the OP: Posting private information or pictures in Revleft is discouraged. I would suggest that you remove your video and post a written version of your speech instead.

[Comrade Akai]

To the OP: Posting private information or pictures in Revleft is discouraged. I would suggest that you remove your video and post a written version of your speech instead.

You think I'll be monitored?

[Comrade Akai]

-snip-

The way I see it, there are a bunch of things Lenin said that support my position and a bunch of things Lenin said that support yours. I don't really understand and it appears hypocritical on Lenin's part. I'd probably have to ask the man himself to know what he thought for sure.

[Rjevan]

You think I'll be monitored?Yes, we had cases where members of this board were harassed by the police for things they posted here, so please be very careful to hand out information which might serve to identify and take actions against you. Here's an official announcement on this topic: http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-monitoring-website-t117701/index.html


The way I see it, there are a bunch of things Lenin said that support my position and a bunch of things Lenin said that support yours. I don't really understand and it appears hypocritical on Lenin's part. I'd probably have to ask the man himself to know what he thought for sure.
Well, you have to keep the historical context in mind, at that time ordinary people generally were religious and in Russia maybe more than in other countries. So Lenin is not opportunistic or something like that but rightly argues that it would be stupid to concentrate on atheist rants and thus playing into the hands of the reactionary chruch by scaring off the workers. If the socialist parties would have declared war on religion many workers would have very likey dismissed these parties and joined religious unions, where they are under controll of the clergy and thus the bourgeoisie. So the communists have to accept religious people within their ranks but educate them and make them realise the true nature of religion because genuine Marxists have to base themselves on a materialist worldview and cannot accept religious delusion and unscientific claims which provide a broad base for reactionaries.

Further he says that you can't eliminate religion by textbooks alone because it is caused by the material conditions and as long as these conditions do not significantly change the broad masses will always cling to straws of hope. This is also what Marx means by "opiate of the people", religion drugs people like a painkiller and makes them suffer their fate on earth in the hope of a better life after death. So while today most people who will join a communist party won't be religious anymore it is still a bad idea to put the struggle against religion at the first place because class struggle is always most important for communists and we won't help the workers very much if we ignore other problems over atheist polemics with some clergyman. After the revolution when the capitalist system has been overthrown and socialism is built the conditions have drastically changed and it is time to educate the whole people and expose the true nature and purpose of religion.
But of course we have to fight religion whenever it promotes its reactionary ideas, e.g. in the pro-life movement. In contrast to some babble about angels this affects us directly, is a threat and mustn't be ignored. We cannot eliminate religion totally under capitalism but we can and must counter its most reactionary policies.

[Argument]

I'm not convinced that religion steems from capitalism. Religion is very old, after all. If people want to be religious, let them, I say. The church should have no coercive powers, though. There are many religious people, trying to fight religion might make them vary of our movement. I know a Christian Anarchist, for example. Also, I have a christian friend who likes the Social Democratic Party, if he were to be convinced that anarchism is good, anarchism would have to allow Christianity, which I think it does.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't agree with people who are militantly atheist. There is this smugness about it which really isn't going to attract religious workers (of whom there are a lot of) to our movement. However I do like to debate religious people about god and spirituality.

[Stand Your Ground]

I agree with religious freedom as long as it does not preach hate. I used to be a Christian that went to church every Sunday but I stopped following that due to it's homophobia.

[Rjevan]

I'm not convinced that religion steems from capitalism. Religion is very old, after all.
You're right, of course religion doesn't steem from capitalism alone and has existed before the rise of the bourgeoisie aswell. But religion and capitalism mutually back each other. As said before, religion is a product of material conditions. Each culture developed their own religion which is more likely to have emerged from the different economic and geographical and thus social and cultural circumstances than from different deities who have nothing better to do with their time than haunting the various regions of the earth and chatting with every fasting weirdo who seeked the deserts, mountains or woods about their preferences in sacrifices and their sexist views. And while they were at it they couldn't help but fool those wannabe prophets for the lolz by telling them that the earth they created in 6 days is flat and the centre of the universe.

So apart from obvious nonsense and the total lack of evidence (but an impressing reliance on pure and blind ignora... er, I mean faith which those deities, of course, declared one of the top virtues if you wanna get into their awesome VIP club once you're dead) religion has little to offer to people. The ruling classes always throughout history used religion as a helpful tool to keep the oppressed masses silent and make them obey their masters, while along the way justifying sexism, racism and supremacism ("We're the chose people, this whole earth is ours by God's will, so let's bring some proper faith to those infidel savages!"). And so did and does capitalism/imperialism. This should be exposed and opposed and once capitalism is gone and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established religion can be more effectively fought than now and the need for religion will decrease more and more since one of its pillars is gone and its basis is also fading.

[Comrade Akai]

Yes, we had cases where members of this board were harassed by the police for things they posted here, so please be very careful to hand out information which might serve to identify and take actions against you. Here's an official announcement on this topic: http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-monitoring-website-t117701/index.html

Holy shit, thanks! I'll be a hell of a lot more careful now.


Well, you have to keep the historical context in mind, at that time ordinary people generally were religious and in Russia maybe more than in other countries. So Lenin is not opportunistic or something like that but rightly argues that it would be stupid to concentrate on atheist rants and thus playing into the hands of the reactionary chruch by scaring off the workers. If the socialist parties would have declared war on religion many workers would have very likey dismissed these parties and joined religious unions, where they are under controll of the clergy and thus the bourgeoisie. So the communists have to accept religious people within their ranks but educate them and make them realise the true nature of religion because genuine Marxists have to base themselves on a materialist worldview and cannot accept religious delusion and unscientific claims which provide a broad base for reactionaries.

Further he says that you can't eliminate religion by textbooks alone because it is caused by the material conditions and as long as these conditions do not significantly change the broad masses will always cling to straws of hope. This is also what Marx means by "opiate of the people", religion drugs people like a painkiller and makes them suffer their fate on earth in the hope of a better life after death. So while today most people who will join a communist party won't be religious anymore it is still a bad idea to put the struggle against religion at the first place because class struggle is always most important for communists and we won't help the workers very much if we ignore other problems over atheist polemics with some clergyman. After the revolution when the capitalist system has been overthrown and socialism is built the conditions have drastically changed and it is time to educate the whole people and expose the true nature and purpose of religion.
But of course we have to fight religion whenever it promotes its reactionary ideas, e.g. in the pro-life movement. In contrast to some babble about angels this affects us directly, is a threat and mustn't be ignored. We cannot eliminate religion totally under capitalism but we can and must counter its most reactionary policies.

What you are suggesting to be counter-productive to our movement is not religion in its entirety, but organized religion, which I must agree is a problem. I don't think there's anything wrong with people having their own beliefs which they keep those beliefs personal unless asked about them.

Entirely hypothetical question. What if comrade Marx was wrong about religion withering away like the state after capitalism is done with?

[RedStarOverChina]

Your religion is not a disability or an innate characteristic, so it's definitely a legitimate subject of discussion, criticism as well as action. It's NOT discrimination to challenge something that has such a direct and often negative consequence to individuals as well as societies as a whole.

Otherwise we'd all be sued for "discriminating" Nazis.

[Comrade Akai]

Your religion is not a disability or an innate characteristic, so it's definitely a legitimate subject of discussion, criticism as well as action. It's NOT discrimination to challenge something that has such a direct and often negative consequence to individuals as well as societies as a whole.

Otherwise we'd all be sued for "discriminating" Nazis.

What is discrimination, and the reason why I put this thread in Discrimination, is when someone says "No. You believe in God, so you're not my comrade."

[¿Que?]

Religion may have been around long before capitalism, but it may be worth noting the work of Max Weber, not a Marxist, but whose work was in some ways a dialogue with Marxism (Marx having already passed on by the time Weber wrote). His main argument is that capitalism, as the idea of accumulation of wealth for its own sake, that is, as an end in itself, not for what it will get you, developed out of certain characteristics of protestantism. So while it can't be argued that capitalism caused religion, the inverse has been posited before.

On the subject of discrimination, my opinion is that while it is not wise to discriminate against people for their religious views, you have to keep in mind that religion is a rejection of materialism, and therefore in the end, cannot be considered Marxism. Religion may even be the highest form of idealism, in that it gives the idea of god, primacy over the material world. Saying the Marxists should not discriminate against religious people (because it is a private matter) is like saying Marxist should not discriminate against idealists. Which is true, Marxists should not discriminate against religious people (like idealists) however, their views should be challenged where and when it is appropriate.

[Comrade Akai]

Religion may have been around long before capitalism, but it may be worth noting the work of Max Weber, not a Marxist, but whose work was in some ways a dialogue with Marxism (Marx having already passed on by the time Weber wrote). His main argument is that capitalism, as the idea of accumulation of wealth for its own sake, that is, as an end in itself, not for what it will get you, developed out of certain characteristics of protestantism. So while it can't be argued that capitalism caused religion, the inverse has been posited before.

On the subject of discrimination, my opinion is that while it is not wise to discriminate against people for their religious views, you have to keep in mind that religion is a rejection of materialism, and therefore in the end, cannot be considered Marxism. Religion may even be the highest form of idealism, in that it gives the idea of god, primacy over the material world. Saying the Marxists should not discriminate against religious people (because it is a private matter) is like saying Marxist should not discriminate against idealists. Which is true, Marxists should not discriminate against religious people (like idealists) however, their views should be challenged where and when it is appropriate.

I entirely agree, there is nothing wrong with challenging ideas within peaceful dialogue. My big problem, which is really the purpose of this thread, is when we have leftists excluding other leftists from comradeship because the excluded believes in some form of higher power or spirituality. If religion is a personal matter (as it very well should be), why the discrimination from this cause?

[¿Que?]

I entirely agree, there is nothing wrong with challenging ideas within peaceful dialogue. My big problem, which is really the purpose of this thread, is when we have leftists excluding other leftists from comradeship because the excluded believes in some form of higher power or spirituality. If religion is a personal matter (as it very well should be), why the discrimination from this cause?
Because, if you want to start a Marxist organization, it is a good idea to only accept Marxists, or people who will potentially become Marxists. Religion is idealism and therefore not Marxist.

[Comrade Akai]

Because, if you want to start a Marxist organization, it is a good idea to only accept Marxists, or people who will potentially become Marxists. Religion is idealism and therefore not Marxist.

Whoopdee freaking doo. All of us on the far left want the same thing in the end, so we should all work together towards that end.

[¿Que?]

Whoopdee freaking doo. All of us on the far left want the same thing in the end, so we should all work together towards that end.
Welcome to the united front comrade. FIN!

[Comrade Akai]

Welcome to the united front comrade. FIN!

Exactly, the left needs a united front. If that isn't RevLeft (which actually reminds me of SF to some degree since if you're not an atheist you get treated like shit, whereas on SF if your eyes aren't blue enough you're either treated like shit or banned) then I have little reason to be here.

[¿Que?]

Exactly, the left needs a united front. If that isn't RevLeft (which actually reminds me of SF to some degree since if you're not an atheist you get treated like shit, whereas on SF if your eyes aren't blue enough you're either treated like shit or banned) then I have little reason to be here.
ok, one more post on this.

There seems to be two issues. 1) institutional discrimination. Revleft does not institutionally discriminate against religious people. I find this to be somewhat of a problem, as I feel more affinity to an atheist social democrat than a religious communist, but whatever. Point is, you won't get restricted for saying you're religious. 2) Culture of discrimination. People treat you like shit because you are religious. There is nothing that can be done. If someone insults you, you can report it to a mod, but don't expect much more. If there is a culture of anti-religion in revleft, nobody is making you post here, so maybe find a nice liberation theology board or something.

Peace!

[cska]

Personally, I don't care if you believe in an invisible and unobservable being as long as that belief doesn't negatively affect your views and actions. Sadly, for a lot of people, it does negatively affect their view and actions.

[Meridian]

I don't agree with people who are militantly atheist. There is this smugness about it which really isn't going to attract religious workers (of whom there are a lot of) to our movement. However I do like to debate religious people about god and spirituality.
Agree with this.

I am a non-believer myself, but I don't get particularly thrilled by the chance of debating theists. The case is most often either: 1) They are completely brainwashed since birth, in which case they won't change their ideas, 2) They have some sort of personal belief that isn't really about dogma, and isn't as obviously harmful or easy to eradicate. Many atheists would fit quite nicely into number 1) there, with the liberal American, a-historical, metaphysical belief in 'Nature and her Laws' being the god-of-choice.

[mikelepore]

What you are suggesting to be counter-productive to our movement is not religion in its entirety, but organized religion, which I must agree is a problem. I don't think there's anything wrong with people having their own beliefs which they keep those beliefs personal unless asked about them.

I see two reasons to denounce religion, whether it is organized or not.

The first reason is the destructive nature of magical thinking. It's not only religion; we also need to denounce astrology, casting magical spells, fear of the number 13, "if you wish hard enough for something it will come true", and all other practices that promote the belief that people can't control their lives primarily through rational understanding and action, working within objective reality. Religion is one example of the more general problem.

A second reason to denounce religion is, even if the beliefs of religion were true, the common reasons that are cited for acceptance of religion are invalid reasons. To say "this must be true because an ancient tradition says so", "this must be true because it comforts me to believe it", and "this must be true because I fear being punished if I say otherwise" are invalid reasons for accepting any proposition. It is in the interest of establishing a just society to promote everyone's capacity to think logically, and therefore these examples of fallacious reasoning have to be exposed.

[red cat]

Religion will not survive socialism. However, the policies towards people who uphold religion will have class characters of their own.

The ruling classes resort to religion only for oppressing the masses. These religious institutions will be dealt with militarily by the proletarian dictatorship. But the ancient superstition of religion has found its way into the oppressed masses as well. For them, the only remedy is education in every field, and gradually opening up of their minds. This might take a few generations to be successful. We will get a religion-free world only at a later stage of socialism.