The Great Unmentionable Evil At The Center Of Our Culture is Monotheism. - Gore Vidal

[Rakhmetov]

The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal--God is the Omnipotent Father--hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and those of his delegates on earth. One God, one King, one Pope, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home.

http://archive.8m.net/vidal.htm

[synthesis]

As a rule, to which there are exceptions, I'd rather live in a monotheistic society than a polytheistic one. The development of monotheism seems to be a prerequisite of feudalism, which precedes capitalism, which precedes socialism. Better one master than a dozen.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As a rule, to which there are exceptions, I'd rather live in a monotheistic society than a polytheistic one. The development of monotheism seems to be a prerequisite of feudalism, which precedes capitalism, which precedes socialism. Better one master than a dozen.

To some extent this is true but there were other factors going on as well influencing religious development in Europe. India , China, and Japan were not monotheistic but they had societies similar to feudalism.

But yeah, I like Gore Vidal but his views on religion are idealistic. His novel on Julian the Apostate was interesting and I've seen versions of his article on the "sky god" several places.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let's see: Were there polytheistic societies back in the day that prohibited child sacrifices?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As a rule, to which there are exceptions, I'd rather live in a monotheistic society than a polytheistic one.

I'm not so sure about that. If history as I understand it is any guide, polytheistic cultures have a much greater tendency towards tolerance and pluralism.


The development of monotheism seems to be a prerequisite of feudalism, which precedes capitalism, which precedes socialism.

How different was Chinese feudalism from European? Because Abrahamic monotheism was certainly an alien concept to feudal China.


Better one master than a dozen.

Polytheistic gods appear to be the personification of different aspects of life & the universe that can be appealed to for assistance, rather than masters to obey unfailingly; You made an offering to Mars in the hope that he would smile upon you and grant you victory in battle, but as far as I'm aware he never gave commandments.

[synthesis]

I'm not so sure about that. If history as I understand it is any guide, polytheistic cultures have a much greater tendency towards tolerance and pluralism.

Really? I would agree if you meant "tolerant and pluralist in regards to other gods of the same religion." In terms of gods of other religions - I can't see how this would be the case.


How different was Chinese feudalism from European? Because Abrahamic monotheism was certainly an alien concept to feudal China.

As I understand it, both Chinese and Indian traditional religions began to incorporate more and more elements of monotheism as time went on.


Polytheistic gods appear to be the personification of different aspects of life & the universe that can be appealed to for assistance, rather than masters to obey unfailingly; You made an offering to Mars in the hope that he would smile upon you and grant you victory in battle, but as far as I'm aware he never gave commandments.But those gods were also imposed on imperial subjects who had their own set of gods. Also, there was that tendency to claim emperors to be gods in their own right, or incarnations thereof.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Christianity had the witch burnings, the Inquisition, the Crusades. Interestingly the Intolerance of Christianity increased in the late middle ages, when the power of the church and the landed aristocracy was under threat.

Hinduism had suttee, Buddhists and Confucianism had persecutions but it wasn't on the scale of Christianity, which looking at it in one way, was the most intolerant belief system in history.

Up until the late 18th century or beyond Muslim societies were more or less okay with a degree of pluralism which was unimaginable in Europe.

I'm not sure myself if was because of differences in the structures of feudalism in Europe versus that of other societies or is it a case of the "super structure" taking on a life of its own different from that of the "base".

Monotheism seems to imply intolerance. If there's one god then who that god is becomes extremely important. There's only one way of doing things.

That's my understanding, anyway. I've thought about the specific role of religion in the West as opposed to other societies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Really? I would agree if you meant "tolerant and pluralist in regards to other gods of the same religion." In terms of gods of other religions - I can't see how this would be the case.

My impression was that the Romans (to use an example) didn't really care about what gods you worshipped so long as you paid your taxes.


As I understand it, both Chinese and Indian traditional religions began to incorporate more and more elements of monotheism as time went on.

I always thought this was due to influence from European Christians, whose religion was seen as more "modern" or some such misapprehension.


But those gods were also imposed on imperial subjects who had their own set of gods.

Actually, I believe the Roman fashion was to incorporate local gods into the overall pantheon, which was a particular sticking point with the Hebrews, whose cultural bias against assimilation survives to this day.


Also, there was that tendency to claim emperors to be gods in their own right, or incarnations thereof.

There is that, but I don't see how that's worse than having a single undying cosmic "king of kings" and his favoured demi-god son.

[synthesis]

My impression was that the Romans (to use an example) didn't really care about what gods you worshipped so long as you paid your taxes.

So what about all the killings of Christians, blah, blah, blah?


I always thought this was due to influence from European Christians, whose religion was seen as more "modern" or some such misapprehension.

I'm sure that's part of it. In India, at least, my understanding is that the Islamic influence came first, and the Christian part later. The development of monotheism in Hinduism would seem to have been vulnerable to the same Islamic criticism of Christianity, namely that its fundamental concept of multiple facets of a single God is in fact polytheism. I don't really feel comfortable discussing polytheism in China, given that I know next to nothing about it.

Either way, I would never say that European Christianity was a more "modern" form of religion, but I would say that, by and large, monotheism is more "modern" than polytheism in many ways.


There is that, but I don't see how that's worse than having a single undying cosmic "king of kings" and his favoured demi-god son.

With the latter, you still get the John Brown types - the people who take religious ideas and use them in revolutionary ways. When God is just the guy at the top of the bureaucracy, it's a lot harder to challenge the status quo.

[Thirsty Crow]

Let's see: Were there polytheistic societies back in the day that prohibited child sacrifices?

I don't know for sure, but I think that the Greek slave society organized in the form of city-states got rid of the religious practice of human sacrifice...Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dimentio]

Let's see: Were there polytheistic societies back in the day that prohibited child sacrifices?

Yes, actually. For example Rome and Greece during their classical epochs. The Romans used to defend their war against Carthage with Carthaginian child sacrifices, which shows that even during the ancient age, there was some kind of social conscience regarding certain things.

As for the OP, the world would definetly have looked different if this kind of religion had dominated instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzPBpV2svVk

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So what about all the killings of Christians, blah, blah, blah?

I thought that was done for political reasons?


I'm sure that's part of it. In India, at least, my understanding is that the Islamic influence came first, and the Christian part later. The development of monotheism in Hinduism would seem to have been vulnerable to the same Islamic criticism of Christianity, namely that its fundamental concept of multiple facets of a single God is in fact polytheism. I don't really feel comfortable discussing polytheism in China, given that I know next to nothing about it.

Either way, I would never say that European Christianity was a more "modern" form of religion, but I would say that, by and large, monotheism is more "modern" than polytheism in many ways.

I disagree; if anything I think polytheism makes more "sense" - why should there be only one of them? If I were to invent a religion, it would be a polytheistic one with aliens playing the role of the various gods, angels, messengers, daemons etc.


With the latter, you still get the John Brown types - the people who take religious ideas and use them in revolutionary ways. When God is just the guy at the top of the bureaucracy, it's a lot harder to challenge the status quo.

But it's also a lot harder to be inflexibly dogmatic when you have rival gods who are basically humans writ large, as opposed to the omniscient, omnipresent Big Brother of the Iron Age.

[Revolution starts with U]

Romans murdered christians because christians refused to see the Emperor as incarnation of God, and ergo refused to pay the tax to the emperor cult. ;)

[Queercommie Girl]

As a rule, to which there are exceptions, I'd rather live in a monotheistic society than a polytheistic one. The development of monotheism seems to be a prerequisite of feudalism, which precedes capitalism, which precedes socialism. Better one master than a dozen.

To say that concrete socio-economic developments would require an abstract idealistic pre-requisite is surely an idealistic and un-Marxist viewpoint. You are turning base and superstructure upside-down.

If anything it is the other way around, religions become more "monotheistic" as societies become more feudal. When there is a correlation between material condition and thought, it is always material condition that comes first, never thought.

Also, unlike materialistic socio-economic concept like feudalism and capitalism, abstract religious concepts like "monotheism" and "polytheism" never have distinct definitions that are really clear. To use ancient Chinese religion as an example, it was believed that there is a Supreme Creator God, not so different in many ways from the God in Abrahamic religions. But it is also believed that there are many lesser gods. So is it "monotheistic" or "polytheistic"? In Abrahamic religions there are also many "lesser divine beings", only they are not called "gods" but rather "angels". It seems the entire distinction between "monotheism" and "polytheism" is largely an intrinsically meaningless semantical one.

It would be wrong to apply post-modern post-structuralism on concrete Marxist concepts like "class", "feudalism" and "capitalism", but it would be quite appropriate to use some post-modernism to de-construct traditional religions and concepts like "monotheism", "polytheism" and indeed "God" itself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Let's see: Were there polytheistic societies back in the day that prohibited child sacrifices?

Actually technically yes. China explicitly banned human sacrifices legally (not just child sacrifices, but all forms of religious human sacrifice) nearly 2500 years ago, during what Chinese Marxists usually consider as China's great slavery-feudalism transition. It began with the state of Qin, in which feudal reforms went the furtherest, but other states began to copy the Qin legal code as they too turned feudal.

Though it is debatable whether ancient Chinese religion (Confucianism and Daoism) is to be classified as "monotheistic" and "polytheistic". It certainly wasn't strictly monotheistic like the Abrahamic faiths. But the ancient Chinese always had a clear belief in a "creator supreme God" similar to the Abrahamic conception of God (this is understandable since both Chinese and Abrahamic cultures are traditionally highly hierarchical and highly patriarchical). For instance, the Temple of Heaven, the most important religious temple in the formal Confucian religion of the imperial Chinese state, which every Chinese dynasty has in its primary capital, is always addressed to the "Supreme August God of Heaven". The most recent Temple of Heaven in China, first constructed during the early Ming dynasty, still stands in Beijing today. If you go there to visit, you can clearly see the ritual plaque addressed to this God of Heaven. Interestingly, in formal Chinese religion, God is virtually never directly represented by an idol, just like in the Abrahamic faiths.

However, personally I think being fundamentally idealistic terms, the debate of "monotheism vs. polytheism" is largely purely semantical and meaningless. As a materialist and pragmatist, I tend to focus much more on material conditions in historical analysis, rather than abstract religious concepts.

[hatzel]

Though it is debatable whether ancient Chinese religion (Confucianism and Daoism) is to be classified as "monotheistic" and "polytheistic". It certainly wasn't strictly monotheistic like the Abrahamic faiths. But the ancient Chinese always had a clear belief in a "creator supreme God" similar to the Abrahamic conception of God (this is understandable since both Chinese and Abrahamic cultures are traditionally highly hierarchical and highly patriarchical).

This might be something which would change over time. Or between different groups. Remember that some streams of Hinduism are pretty much monotheistic, and it could well be the same in China. Reasons for this? Well, the two theories of monotheism <-> polytheism, really. Some believe that polytheism develops out of monotheism. For instance, there is one deity, a single deity. And this deity is ascribed various characteristics, a various powers. Eventually, this deity 'splinters', so that one can address that part of the deity which controls, for instance, the rain, when one needs rain. With time, this single deity even splits into distinct deities. The reverse theory (which seems more likely to me, and fits in with this discussion better) is that polytheism predates monotheism. With time, one of the many deities would be considered most important to a particular population, probably depending on their way of life. Arable farmers would pray mainly to the rain god, whilst those who keep livestock would pray to the god associated with the protection of livestock. Or, if there is no hierarchy of the gods, then this will happen. If there is already a 'head' of the gods, then it will probably be this one who is considered most important. And, when prayer and so on is directed increasingly exclusively at this 'most important' deity, the other deities begin to be forgotten, and in many cases 'merged' into the central deity, representing its various aspects. This is (probably) a fair explanation for the monotheistic streams of Hinduism, but really, we can't be certain. Might be the same in China, though, it's not impossible...?

As for all this talk of patriarchy, I should just mention that claiming that G-d is male is, according to Judaism, blasphemous. G-d is only masculine grammatically...but then so is a table, for instance, and both G-d and a table are equally male. Sure, you might say "oh, but Pasha, I read in Genesis that G-d made Adam in His image, and Adam is a man, so G-d must be a man". Well, this is a fair argument...except for the fact that the Torah teaches us that Adam wasn't a man. As Eve was, according to scripture, made by taking Adams ribs and reshaping them (I'm sure we've all heard of this story), this original Adam, in G-d's image, wasn't a male, as he also had Eve inside him, and so was actually male and female, in one vessel. If you get the idea...clearly he wasn't a man, as we believe the term, as he had too many ribs. He was, according to Judaism, a 'merging' of man and woman. We could imagine that man is water, and woman is salt. G-d, then, is salt water. Our salt water G-d makes Adam in His image...and it's salt water. It is only afterwards, when G-d boils the water against a plate, like we used to do at primary school, that man and woman are made. So G-d's image, as Adam was made to, was salt water, both male and female. Just in case anybody was interested :) I mean, yeah, when the Greeks, with their poor knowledge of Hebrew, saw G-d referred to as 'it [masculine grammatical form]', they assumed, as they were so used to their system of male and female deities, that the Hebrews would also have a god who conformed to one of the two biological genders. Which is why the Christians now have this idea of an exclusively male G-d, but it's not our fault if they don't understand our stuff :thumbup1:

So yeah, really I'm debating the suggestion that the Abrahamic faiths are inherently patriarchal in their subservience to the Biblical G-d, or that this is the reason for patriarchy (which we would argue is a lot stronger in Christian society than in Jewish) in the Abrahamic faiths. And maybe I'm also saying that we should say 'Christianity' instead of 'the Abrahamic faiths', when we're referring to it exclusively. Because we don't all think like they do :laugh:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, the two theories of monotheism <-> polytheism, really. Some believe that polytheism develops out of monotheism. For instance, there is one deity, a single deity. And this deity is ascribed various characteristics, a various powers. Eventually, this deity 'splinters', so that one can address that part of the deity which controls, for instance, the rain, when one needs rain. With time, this single deity even splits into distinct deities. The reverse theory (which seems more likely to me, and fits in with this discussion better) is that polytheism predates monotheism. With time, one of the many deities would be considered most important to a particular population, probably depending on their way of life.

How about both and the fine line of henotheism?

In my religion critique thread, the deity has various incarnations across all scattered societies, and these incarnations split over time. The consequences of the Tower of Babel, linguistic divides, are a testament to this. The result, then, merges back slowly in another form.


The development of monotheism seems to be a prerequisite of feudalism

On the question of feudalism: why feudalism? Feudalism is an extremely decentralized political and economic system.

If polytheism, henotheism, and monotheism are tied to systems, I'd expect monotheism to emerge from transitions into absolutism (slave absolutism a la Akhenaten or late feudal absolutism a la Richelieu and the later Sun King).

Actually, the Asiatic modes of production facilitated Islam and some other monotheistic tendencies because of this centralized power. Judaism is odd, in that its transition from henotheism to monotheism was developed in exile and outside of state power.

The so-called "Bahai Faith" was developed outside of state power as well, in direct competition with Islam.

Xianity, save for Unitarians and some really minor Xian groups, is henotheistic, so its development after Constantine is a wash.

[Queercommie Girl]

If polytheism, henotheism, and monotheism are tied to systems, I'd expect monotheism to emerge from transitions into absolutism (slave absolutism a la Akhenaten or late feudal absolutism a la Richelieu and the later Sun King).

Actually, the Asiatic modes of production facilitated Islam and some other monotheistic tendencies because of this centralized power. Judaism is odd, in that its transition from henotheism to monotheism was developed in exile and outside of state power.


There is some truth in that. Chinese "semi-monotheism" based on Heaven-worship began during the period of Qin unification, as China was politically unified under a single absolute authority for the first time. It was indeed the Qin dynasty that constructed China's first Temple of Heaven. This is not just a coincedence.

But I would say that "absolutism" is on the level of the political superstructure, not the economic base. One could certainly have "feudal absolutism", which was essentially the form of feudalism that existed in China from Qin to Qing times. By definition, any economic system that primarily rests on landlordism is a feudal one, regardless of what the political superstructure might be, whether it's centralised or de-centralised, aristocratic or bureaucratic.

As most Chinese Marxists (of every tendency) agree, the world's earliest explicit legal recognition of landlordism and the landlord class occurred in the State of Lu (Confucius' birthplace) in Spring and Autumn Period China, with the official introduction of the "land tax laws" in 594 BCE.

[Queercommie Girl]

Here is a passage from The History of Chinese Philosophy (first published in the 1970s in the PRC) on China's slavery-feudalism transition:

The economic characteristic of the ancient Chinese slavery system is that the slave-lord aristocracy directly possesses both land and slaves, and sometimes gives some of them out to clan and tribal relatives and political allies through the "well-fields" and "title-granting" systems. Through this vassal states of various types are established to defend the entire economic system of slavery. By the Western Zhou dynasty, there emerged an explicit and absolute political system of hereditary succession based on bloodlines among the various ranks of the ruling slave-lord aristocratic class. The various ranks of the slave-lords enjoy multiple privileges in the economic, political and legal senses. According to the Chinese classical text Shangshu/Tangshi, oppressed slaves insulted the last king of the slave-lord Xia dynasty (circa 1600 BCE) thus: "Oh you great sun, when shall you perish? We'd rather be destroyed with you than to continue living like this!" From this one can clearly see the discontent among the slaves towards the ruling slave-lords. Another example is that when the Zhou dynasty rose up to overthrow the Shang dynasty (circa 1046 BCE), the tens of thousands of slaves who were forced to the frontlines by the Shang dynasty all rebelled against their lords and joined the Zhou forces, thus completely destroying the Shang polity. From this one can see the intense class antagonisms within slavery society.

... ...

By the end of the Western Zhou period, Chinese slavery began to break apart. The period from 770 BCE to 403 BCE is usually called the Spring and Autumn Period, it is a transitional period from slavery to feudalism in China. During this period, due to advances in productive tools, especially the beginning of using iron tools and using oxen to plow the fields, productive forces were further developed. At the same time, increasing numbers of slave rebellions and escapes meant that the old slavery system is more and more becoming a fetter to the development of productivity. At this time, in some of the Zhou dynasty's vassal states, certain slave-lords, in order to acquire greater wealth and power, began to either force or hire slaves to develop originally barren lands outside the legally assigned lands they received from the ruling Zhou slave-lords. This way more and more privately-owned lands appeared, and feudal relations of production began to emerge. In 594 BCE, the "land tax laws" of the State of Lu became the earliest explicit legal article to formally recognise the new landlord class in history, it legally affirmed the formally legal status of acquired private feudal lands outside the originally assigned territories given by the Zhou slave-lord king. From then on the newly arisen landlord class has been formally recognised by law, and officially entered into the pages of history. After this, other major Zhou vassal states such as Qi, Jin and Zheng all initiated similar feudal reforms, and the feudal landlord class gradually acquired economic and political advantage over the old slave-lord class. Through repeated struggles over a long period, by the Warring States Period, the feudal system became formally established in China.

During the Spring and Autumn Period, the antagonisms between the newly arisen feudal landlord class and the old slave-lord aristocracy became increasingly intense. During this society-transforming era of struggle, the new landlord class only managed to overcome the power of the slave-lord aristocracy by using the power of the slaves and the ordinary freemen. Through various means, such as tax reduction, disaster relief and meritocratic rewards, the landlords attracted escaped slaves and won people's hearts, in order to strengthen their own political and economic power. For instance, the Tian clan in the State of Qi relied on the power of the people through its six decades of political and economic struggles against the old ruling slave-lord aristocracy in Qi from 532 BCE to 475 BCE. During this period, the Tian clan engaged in three armed struggles against the old slave-lord aristocracy, and only through these did they manage to acquire political power in Qi. Similarly, in the old slave-lord State of Jin, through numerous attempts at political and military struggle, the three feudal clans of Han, Zhao and Wei managed to partition the Jin state and established three new feudal nations on its carcass.

There are some formal similarities between the Chinese slavery-feudalism transition and the European feudalism-capitalism transition. The difference is that in Europe, bourgeois absolutism overcame feudal aristocracy, in China (much earlier), feudal absolutism overcame slave-lord aristocracy.

[Sir Comradical]

The irony is that this statement sounds like religious drivel. It's as if he's evoking images of Satan by alluding to this great unmentionable evil that apparently lies at the very centre of human culture. Soon he'll be talking about salvation.

[synthesis]

First off, I'm not going to stand by my claim that "feudalism is predicated on monotheism." It was a hypothesis, one that is obviously incorrect. Moving on...


Romans murdered christians because christians refused to see the Emperor as incarnation of God, and ergo refused to pay the tax to the emperor cult.


I thought that was done for political reasons?

As you (NoXion) said, they are interconnected. I was responding to your claim that polytheist societies tend to be "more tolerant and pluralist."


I disagree; if anything I think polytheism makes more "sense" - why should there be only one of them? If I were to invent a religion, it would be a polytheistic one with aliens playing the role of the various gods, angels, messengers, daemons etc.

I don't think I understand how this relates to my argument.


But it's also a lot harder to be inflexibly dogmatic when you have rival gods who are basically humans writ large, as opposed to the omniscient, omnipresent Big Brother of the Iron Age.

I think this gets to the heart of the argument. Polytheism means that there are more earthly "interpreters" of divine authority, while monotheism, in theory, means that there is only one. Again, it is easier to challenge one "interpreter" than to challenge many.


Also, unlike materialistic socio-economic concept like feudalism and capitalism, abstract religious concepts like "monotheism" and "polytheism" never have distinct definitions that are really clear. To use ancient Chinese religion as an example, it was believed that there is a Supreme Creator God, not so different in many ways from the God in Abrahamic religions. But it is also believed that there are many lesser gods. So is it "monotheistic" or "polytheistic"? In Abrahamic religions there are also many "lesser divine beings", only they are not called "gods" but rather "angels". It seems the entire distinction between "monotheism" and "polytheism" is largely an intrinsically meaningless semantical one.

I don't think the distinction between monotheism and polytheism is intrinsically meaningless, at least not any more so than most aspects of religion. Regardless of the presence of a "supreme creator God," there is a difference between cults of saints and angels and those of actual gods.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As you (NoXion) said, they are interconnected. I was responding to your claim that polytheist societies tend to be "more tolerant and pluralist."

So the Romans came down on tax evaders pretty heavily. Doesn't surprise me.


I don't think I understand how this relates to my argument.

You were going on about monotheistic religion being more "rational". Well it turns out we had it backwards - matter creates intelligence first, not the other way round. Deities that have naturally evolved (such as powerful, super-intelligent aliens) would be easier to reconcile with our knowledge of the universe.


I think this gets to the heart of the argument. Polytheism means that there are more earthly "interpreters" of divine authority, while monotheism, in theory, means that there is only one. Again, it is easier to challenge one "interpreter" than to challenge many.

I disagree. All are vulnerable to the same demand: where is the evidence?

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think the distinction between monotheism and polytheism is intrinsically meaningless, at least not any more so than most aspects of religion. Regardless of the presence of a "supreme creator God," there is a difference between cults of saints and angels and those of actual gods.

In the concrete sense, can you explain what the difference is? Apart from using different terms?

What is the fundamental difference between the reverence of ancestral spirits in Confucianism and the reverence of saints in Catholicism?

Did you know that when Catholicism first reached China, many people believed that the religious rituals of Confucianism are fully compatible with those of Catholicism, since as Jesuits like Matteo Ricci argued, ancestral spirits in Confucianism are not directly worshipped as gods?

[Queercommie Girl]

First off, I'm not going to stand by my claim that "feudalism is predicated on monotheism." It was a hypothesis, one that is obviously incorrect. Moving on...





As you (NoXion) said, they are interconnected. I was responding to your claim that polytheist societies tend to be "more tolerant and pluralist."



I don't think I understand how this relates to my argument.



I think this gets to the heart of the argument. Polytheism means that there are more earthly "interpreters" of divine authority, while monotheism, in theory, means that there is only one. Again, it is easier to challenge one "interpreter" than to challenge many.


The only way your idea makes a bit of sense is to say that feudal absolutism is relatively progressive compared with slave-lord aristocracy (i.e. in Chinese antiquity) and that bourgeois absolutism is relatively progressive compared with feudal aristocracy (i.e. in Europe). As Engels pointed out, the political unification of Germany into a bourgeois state is relatively more progressive compared with when Germany was divided into numerous feudal states.

Absolutism in political superstructure is more commonly associated with monotheism or quasi-monotheism in religious thought. But it is the politics that is the determining factor, not religion.

To change one God for many gods could be like changing the dictatorship of the one party-state in the FSU for the rampant gangster capitalism that exists in the Russia today. Relatively speaking the former could still be better, just like nowadays many people in Russia would rather return to the Stalinist era than living like how they do now. Often ordered oppression is more bearable than anarchic oppression.

[anticap]

The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is [bourgeois private property].

Fixed.