Are Abrahamic traditions more compatible with communism?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Comrades!

When we consider theology as well as history, we see that Abrahamic traditions encourage good qualities in humans - cooperation, equality, social justice etc. History has also shown us that. Of course, certain people used religion for political purposes, but that's another matter. Point is, generally speaking, Abrahamic religions have always tilted toward progressive concepts.

Contrast this with non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism or Buddhism. They not only encourage slavery, caste, exploitation of the poor and all that but also try to convince everyone that they are 'normal' part of life. That's the difference, if you ask me. Even though bad things did happen in Abrahamic societies, they were recognized as bad things with no rationalization whatsoever. For instance, even a missionary who undergoes voluntary poverty in a third world country would never say that the local people too should enjoy poverty, as he is doing. On the contrary, he helps the natives by giving them food, education, and healthcare.

In sharp contrast, a non-Abrahamic guy would either attack the poor for being poor or use their helplessness to exploit them even further. This is the difference I am talking about. The non-Abrahamic guy would try and convince everyone that bad things like poverty, injustice, exploitation are actually good by citing karma or some other theory.

What I am trying to say is this: since Abrahamic traditions always tend to make a distinction between right and wrong, at least they have the hope of doing the right thing, which is to choose communism. This is out of the question as far as the non-Abrahamic people are concerned since their religion revolves around blurring the distinction between right and wrong. So why would they ever bother to do the right thing? They'd rather be happy with capitalism because it complements their religious beliefs pretty well.

Mahatma

[Jimmie Higgins]

Short answer: no. All religions have a sort of contradictory role in society. As Marx said, religion is the soul in a soulless world for many people: so modern christian churches in the US, for example, provide a sort of privatized community and aid for church members in need when the neoliberal orthodoxy has dismantled social services and pushed people into a more atomized non-community sort of life in general. But at the same time, these communities become insular (many churches are essentially racially and class segregated communities) and the help it gives to people in that community does nothing to really take on and solve the root cause of poverty and instability for regular people in the US. So it both helps people in a way, but also re-enforces the structures and system that cause people to need that help in the first place. Ironically church-based social services is "giving people fish, but not teaching them how to fish".

As far as judeo/christianity vs. other religions: there is little social difference. Buddhism initially challenged the caste system of hinduism just as, say, protestantism was a reflection of social changes happening in Europe that took on the feudalism of Catholicism or Shia Islam reflected social changes that were challenging the old order in Islam. However when the new order represented by these religious developments took hold, the initial progressive or insurgent tendencies then became ideological defenders of the new social order. So protestant ideas that challenged the christian feudal order (like the idea of a god-ordered social caste being challenged by ideas about having an individual relationship to god and so on) went from being insurgent to being used to justify the new capitalist order: if you are a successful individual, then it is because you are saved, if not, god hates you and that's why you're poor.

[Sir Comradical]

Religion is obscure which means it can be moulded to fit any political action, from genocide to the redistribution of wealth. I can see religious teachings being moulded to fit communism so long as their positive aspects are emphasized and the reactionary stuff is flushed down the toilet.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah, I think people should be free to determine their own spiritual beliefs after a revolution as long as these beliefs are personal and not something that harms others. People need to be free to do and act as they want in a worker's society if it is to be fully free and democratic (provided it does not directly harm or interfere with other people).

[NGNM85]

Yeah, I think people should be free to determine their own spiritual beliefs after a revolution as long as these beliefs are personal and not something that harms others. People need to be free to do and act as they want in a worker's society if it is to be fully free and democratic (provided it does not directly harm or interfere with other people).

That's an excellent rule-of-thumb.

Getting back to the central issue, I just want to take some preemptive action. In conversations like this people inevitably bring up the nice lines from the Bible about sharing and equality or some such heartwarming fluff. However, those people are disregarding the hundreds of pages of bigotry, intolerence, authoritarianism, and explicit exhortations to violence. Like I said, even Jesus said if you find a heretic "bring him hither and slay him before me." Claiming that Christianity/Judaism/Islam is all about love is total nonsense. What do these books say about heretics? About a woman's place? Clearly, the authors of the Bible expected us to own slaves, among other things. We need to recognize that the ideas in these texts are nothing short of the antithesis of civilization, and dispense with them, accordingly.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

With Christianity, if the majority of Christians would pay attention to the commands to love everyone and to help the poor, the orphaned, the widowed and the old and ultimately to do things for other people instead of theirselves, Christianity would be far more compatible with communism... but people have let religion and politics and nationalism mixed and in turn have corrupted the meaning... even my youth pastor freaked when he found out that I became a Marxist, I told him that I did it because I was sick of seeing hungry people and people who have a lot to contribute, but can't because their financial class has left them without the chance for a good education... after that, he tried to basically say that the majority of the poor in America are poor because they're lazy and he tried to suggest that marxism would make us all poor in the end... That really pissed me off, but because he's a close friend, I've chosen to just avoid politics with him and to help with most of the charity/fundraiser things that come up.

[Blackscare]

You clearly have no idea of even the basic precepts of Buddhism.

And when there's crass exploitation in Abrahamic society its an aberration, but when the same thing happens in non-Abrahamic society its the rule?

Are you aware that things like serfdom and monarchy were historically justified along Christian theological lines? And if you think that these faiths have a "clear line between right and wrong", then what do you have to say about the crusades or, one of my favorites, the handing out of "indulgences" (I believe thats the term), which you could buy to absolve yourself of sin. Justification and encouragement of frankly barbaric behavior is something seen time and time again in these religions. All religions, at times, but for the sake of argument I'd like to take yours down a notch.


I don't see how you can just shrug off the tawdry laundry list of evil perpetrated in the name of the Abrahamic faiths as mere aberrations (that seem to be persistent throughout history and often condoned by the church).

Here's a simple explanation of the Buddhist (I can't speak for Hindu, as I don't know much about it) conception of karma, as described by my grandfather who was a Zen monk before he died:

The universe is like a giant river that is polluted, and everything that comes to be within this universe is an off-shoot stream that eventually merges again with the whole of the universe. The duty of all beings is to purify one's own stream, through compassion and the pursuit of enlightenment, so that when one day one's water is given back to the whole, the whole is made that much cleaner, even if it is an infinitesimally small change in the larger scheme of things. This is done by displaying compassion and giving your energy to the good of others every moment of the day.

So how does your analysis fit with that? Do you actually know anything about these faiths or are you going by some bullshit that your youth group leader told you?



You have an idealized image of your own faith and you're applying selective cynicism where it suits your pre-existing world views. Every religion has been put to negative use, even Zen monks provided justification for ww2 and helped soldiers achieve a better mentality for battle. Stop using double standards is all I'm asking.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

You clearly have no idea of even the basic precepts of Buddhism.
.

You don't get it, do you? I am not talking about theological matters but culture. There is a difference between an act perpetrated by an individual and an act which is the result of cultural upbringing.

For instance, a Hindu abusing a low-caste person is considered 'normal' in Hindu societies and, therefore, any individual who does that is merely acting in tune with his cultural ethos. Abusing the less fortunate is part of Hindu culture, so such actions are as normal to them as breathing is to you.

Now if the same action were done by a Christian, that is an act done by an individual and has no bearing on culture. It is the exact opposite of the previous case where the individual was simply acting according to his culture; here, the individual is acting against his culture.

[Blackscare]

It is the exact opposite of the previous case where the individual was simply acting according to his culture; here, the individual is acting against his culture.


And I brought up points to you about how Christian culture has seen a huge amount of justification for abhorrent practices from the church, so please explain the second part of this statement.

[Blackscare]

Nevermind. You, sir, are a good troll.

[Raúl Duke]

Are Abrahamic traditions more compatible with communism?No, not really...not any more or less than most other religions.


Now if the same action were done by a Christian, that is an act done by an individual and has no bearing on culture.That depends...among some puritans outward signs of wealth/material success were seen as signs of piety/god's favor or something of that sort.


Contrast this with non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism or Buddhism. They not only encourage slavery, caste, exploitation of the poor and all that but also try to convince everyone that they are 'normal' part of life.Buddhism doesn't, although in the past they may permit/condone it because in some versions of buddhism this world is not important and the focus is towards re-incarnation/reaching Nirvana.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam has allowed slavery and such. Entire Islamic, Judaic, and Christian societies have had slavery, etc and religious justification was used in some cases (particularly in the Southern U.S.).

Again, you are only using double standards and doing the old "pot calling the kettle black" stuff. Just admit your a religious supremacist/fundamentalist and view your religion to be "true/righteous" against those "heathens" and this is all you care about, your "christian brothers," both worker and bourgeois; Even over other members of the working classes that happen to have different religious (or no religious) views.

[ComradeOm]

Point is, generally speaking, Abrahamic religions have always tilted toward progressive conceptsWhah? Have you any idea - any idea at all - as to the history of the Catholic Church? We're talking about the same organisation that declared progress itself to be a sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors). The Church stopped being 'progressive' about, say, two millennia ago


What I am trying to say is this: since Abrahamic traditions always tend to make a distinction between right and wrong, at least they have the hope of doing the right thing, which is to choose communismYou're aware that the dualism in the various "Abrahamic traditions" was heavily influenced by Persian Mazdaism? That is, a decidedly "non-Abrahamic people" :glare:

Regardless, I'm not in a position to comment as to whether this dualism is present in Hinduism or Buddhism but I'm pretty sure that the Church, or various Western churches, have been almost invariably sided with anti-communism whenever faced with the choice between 'right and wrong'

[Raúl Duke]

since Abrahamic traditions always tend to make a distinction between right and wrong, at least they have the hope of doing the right thing, which is to choose communism

"right" and "wrong" are actually mostly a subjective quality. I'm not saying that there is no reason to consider something "right" or "wrong" (society deems killing in most cases to be "wrong" but it enacts this rule, don't kill in most cases, and the rule seems "righteous" for the sake of having a stable society; a society that condone randomly killing would not be a stable one) but just pointing out that's a matter of perspective. To the bourgeoisie, "communism is wrong."

[Dimentio]

As far as judeo/christianity vs. other religions: there is little social difference. Buddhism initially challenged the caste system of hinduism just as, say, protestantism was a reflection of social changes happening in Europe that took on the feudalism of Catholicism or Shia Islam reflected social changes that were challenging the old order in Islam. However when the new order represented by these religious developments took hold, the initial progressive or insurgent tendencies then became ideological defenders of the new social order. So protestant ideas that challenged the christian feudal order (like the idea of a god-ordered social caste being challenged by ideas about having an individual relationship to god and so on) went from being insurgent to being used to justify the new capitalist order: if you are a successful individual, then it is because you are saved, if not, god hates you and that's why you're poor.

And that isn't the case of revolutionary socialism and its history since 1917?

[RED DAVE]

However when the new order represented by these religious developments took hold, the initial progressive or insurgent tendencies then became ideological defenders of the new social order
And that isn't the case of revolutionary socialism and its history since 1917?No it isn't, which, one more time, indicates that you have no conception of socialism or revolution. Why you have the positions of Forum Moderator and Global Moderator is beyond me.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

Christian ethics has had a profound impact on the world, including some posetive communistic things. However Christian theology itself is something oppressive that could not possibly exist in a free society.

[danyboy27]

Christian ethics has had a profound impact on the world, including some posetive communistic things. However Christian theology itself is something oppressive that could not possibly exist in a free society.

for exemple??

[Crimson Commissar]

No, definitely NOT. The trio of imperialistic bullshit that we call the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism has caused unimaginable amounts of oppression and harm to the world as a whole. This goes right back to the very birth of Christianity. Once Christians got into positions of power, the Pagans of Europe and the Middle-East were violently oppressed, and a strong base of Christian power and dominance was established in Europe. The same happened with Islam, the early Muslim caliphates spread their religion through imperialistic conquest, completely disregarding the culture, religion and traditions of the lands they were taking. How can you regard a religion which created an oppressive empire stretching from Spain all the way to fucking India as compatible with Socialism? History has proven that the Abrahamic religions are the ultimate tool of oppression and imperialism, and therefore they should have nothing to do with Socialism and we should be completely opposed to them and their traditions.

[Dean]

How can you regard a religion which created an oppressive empire stretching from Spain all the way to fucking India as compatible with Socialism?

"Religion" didn't "create an oppressive empire." Nor are the religions wholly represented by the particular conquesting nations and groups you refer to here.

It's not a mistake that the most well-documented manifestations of religion are the movements of the ruling class. But it is a mistake to take these traditions and indiscriminately wrap them in a cloak of "imperial violence" just because you can't see past the activity of the ruling class.

[Crimson Commissar]

"Religion" didn't "create an oppressive empire." Nor are the religions wholly represented by the particular conquesting nations and groups you refer to here.

It's not a mistake that the most well-documented manifestations of religion are the movements of the ruling class. But it is a mistake to take these traditions and indiscriminately wrap them in a cloak of "imperial violence" just because you can't see past the activity of the ruling class.
The Rashidun Caliphate, which is the predecessor to the empire I am referring to, was established almost immediately after the beginning of Islam. The sole reason for it's creation was to spread their religion through conquest and oppression, and they succeeded. It's nothing like Christianity, where all the empires that followed it were created years after it's birth and were not created only due to religion.