Religion after revolution (How to deal with it?)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

How did nations which undertook socialist revolutions deal with religion? How did the various parties purge or render impotent the numerous superstitions plagueing their country post-revolution? Did they violently force out the religionist or deal with them slowly over time?

Any examples will do.

[Who?]

Organized religion should be discouraged; however there is nothing wrong with worshipping and studying the bible in private.

Of course religion will eventually become superfluous, so it will sort of fade out, then that's the end of that. :D

Edit: Most early Marxist states had a policy of state atheism and thus persecuted certain religious sects.

Example: Within about a year of the revolution (in Russia) the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

The Stalinists "delt with it" in the 30s by throwing Siberian shamans out of helicopters, the Maoists "delt with it" in the late 60s/early 70s by destroying Taoist and Buddhist temples.

Of course this is because religious ideologies such as shamanism, Taoism, and Buddhism are not entirely copacetic with the proletarian work-ethic desired by the party-bureaucrat bourgeoisie.

[Red Commissar]

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan/Republic of Afghanistan during the 1980s would be a place to look. It had to face traditional religious elements in their society while it was advancing changes to create a socialist state.

[Adi Shankara]

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan/Republic of Afghanistan during the 1980s would be a place to look. It had to face traditional religious elements in their society while it was advancing changes to create a socialist state.

Although to be honest, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was officially tolerant of religion (as seen in their flag, which incorporated the Quran), as also was post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Burkina Faso.

I don't think religion should be discouraged or encouraged. I don't think religion is really all too relevant to revolutionary interests unless it hinders leftist development (which is sometimes, but certainly not always, the case).

Also, I'd like to point out that Orthodox Marxism discourages any interference with religious affairs, as religion is seen as the aspirations of the working class, and can only dissappear with a classless society.

[Red Commissar]

Although to be honest, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was officially tolerant of religion (as seen in their flag, which incorporated the Quran), as also was post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Burkina Faso

It's why I brought it up. It's worth looking at different ways to deal with a religion that is deeply entrenched in the populace. Especially if it'll fall into counter-revolutionary circles.

[Queercommie Girl]

Edit: Most early Marxist states had a policy of state atheism and thus persecuted certain religious sects.

Example: Within about a year of the revolution (in Russia) the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).



It's not really "persecution". The said religions are not just "innocent" belief systems, but an integral part of the landlordist and bourgeois economic structure, like the Tibetan Buddhist Lamas, who were the biggest landlords in pre-revolutionary Tibet.

Currently here in the UK the Church of England is one of the country's biggest landlords. Are you suggesting that if the UK has a socialist revolution now, we should not appropriate all CoE property and land just because it is a religious institution?

Marxism should not directly attack abstract religious beliefs in a political way, the only thing that should be done in this area would be to encourage scientific and rational education. However, if a religion is directly linked to the bourgeois or feudal socio-economic structure that Marxists seek to overthrow, then certainly not even the slightest bit of extra protection should be granted to any religion when the capitalists and landlords are dispossessed by the revolution just because they are religious.

[Queercommie Girl]

Also, I'd like to point out that Orthodox Marxism discourages any interference with religious affairs,


Not when religions are explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or when they are apologists and defenders of reactionary feudal and capitalist systems in the concrete socio-economic sense, e.g. the church being one of the biggest landlords in the country. The primary focus of attack here is not the religion itself, but certain socio-economic and political manifestations of the said religion.

[Tzadikim]

At this point, I have to wonder whether or not we'd have to deal with it by the time a revolution came about. The atheist population of the West is growing, and if this century sees strongly socially-conservative authoritarian regimes emerge (as I suspect), the natural brutalization of man it entails will eventually lead even more to reject it.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Stalinists "delt with it" in the 30s by throwing Siberian shamans out of helicopters, the Maoists "delt with it" in the late 60s/early 70s by destroying Taoist and Buddhist temples.


To put Buddhism and Shamanism into the same category is a mistake. Shamanism is a tribal religion that is not politically or socio-economically oppressive, but Buddhism is an oppressive religion. In pre-revolutionary Tibet for instance the Buddhist lamas were the biggest landlords in the country.

[Who?]

It's not really "persecution". The said religions are not just "innocent" belief systems, but an integral part of the landlordist and bourgeois economic structure, like the Tibetan Buddhist Lamas, who were the biggest landlords in pre-revolutionary Tibet.

Currently here in the UK the Church of England is one of the country's biggest landlords. Are you suggesting that if the UK has a socialist revolution now, we should not appropriate all CoE property and land just because it is a religious institution?

Marxism should not directly attack abstract religious beliefs in a political way, the only thing that should be done in this area would be to encourage scientific and rational education. However, if a religion is directly linked to the bourgeois or feudal socio-economic structure that Marxists seek to overthrow, then certainly not even the slightest bit of extra protection should be granted to any religion when the capitalists and landlords are dispossessed by the revolution just because they are religious.

No, I absolutely agree with you.

I used the word persecute for the sake of language.

[Adi Shankara]

To put Buddhism and Shamanism into the same category is a mistake. Shamanism is a tribal religion that is not politically or socio-economically oppressive, but Buddhism is an oppressive religion. In pre-revolutionary Tibet for instance the Buddhist lamas were the biggest landlords in the country.

I'm guessing you don't know the history of Tibet, and the fact that Lamaist rule was imposed by the Mongol aligned palace regents, and that they often even killed the Dalai lamas to justify their politics; Besides, how does Buddhism aside from Tibetan Buddhism have anything to do with Lamaist rule?

[DaComm]

I always felt as though a worker revolution could acheive supreme solidarity only through the disbanding of religious ties that would otherwise create tensions between the working class. A church, a temple, a preist, and a bible are all (in my eyes) probably not going to exist in a Socialist society.

[F9]

The same as is now(by [most] revleft[not the site] movement).
Will be criticized, point its stupidity and mock it.If people want to believe to those, its their opinion, its their minds, so as long as they are keeping it "lovable" and dont start hunting down jews, muslims etc, then no one has a say to what they believe.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm guessing you don't know the history of Tibet, and the fact that Lamaist rule was imposed by the Mongol aligned palace regents,


Tibet was a semi-tribal society until the Mongol period, so before then class society was not as well established in Tibet as it was in China. This explains why pre-Lamaist religion (a mixture of Buddhism and Tibet's native tribal Bon religion) in Tibet was less oppressive than Lamaist Buddhism.

But you are missing the point. I wasn't saying Lamaism is native to Tibet. In fact, Buddhism as a whole is not native to Tibet, the Tibetans have their own native tribal Bon religion before Buddhism ever came to the region. So how does the fact that Lamaism was introduced by the Mongols invalidate my essential criticism of theocratic Lamaism?



and that they often even killed the Dalai lamas to justify their politics; Besides, how does Buddhism aside from Tibetan Buddhism have anything to do with Lamaist rule?
I hope you are not apologising for Lamaist theocratic feudal landlordism, which is one of the worst forms of feudalism that has ever existed. If your source of Tibetan religion comes from the Nobel Peace Prize winner Dalai Lama given out by the imperialist USA, then your views are very biased. I suggest you read some socialist sources instead. If you don't trust PRC sources, then there are some good articles published by the PSL which is US-based.

Tibetan Buddhism is one of the three major branches of Buddhist religion. All the brutal oppression of the serfs in Tibet was explicitly conducted in the name of Buddhism. Therefore by definition Buddhism is responsible for the oppression in Tibet. You can't just say "Tibetan Buddhism is oppressive but it isn't really Buddhism", that's dodging the issue. Similarly I think Leninism cannot deny responsibility for people like Pol Pot. After all, it was all done in the name of Leninism. This is partly why I'm partly influenced by anarchism.

Buddhism is a religion that emerged under class society. Therefore by definition it is qualitatively different from tribal religions like Shamanism. It may be less oppressive quantitatively than Western Christianity or even Chinese Confucianism, but fundamentally it is still an instrument of class oppression.

Besides, note that I'm not even attacking Buddhism directly here, but rather Lamaist landlordism. People have the freedom of religious belief (as long as it does not discriminate against other people), but for socialists people do not have the freedom to be a landlord. Buddhist landlords, like Christian landlords and atheist landlords, must all be forcefully dispossessed by the revolutionary government. That's what communism means. Just because a landlord happens to be a peaceful religious man doesn't make him any less of a landlord or any less reactionary.

The PRC for instance did not completely oppose Buddhism in Tibet, apart from during a few years of the Cultural Revolution when the policy became somewhat ultra-leftist, it only opposed Buddhist landlordism.

[Adi Shankara]

The same as is now(by [most] revleft[not the site] movement).
Will be criticized, point its stupidity and mock it.If people want to believe to those, its their opinion, its their minds, so as long as they are keeping it "lovable" and dont start hunting down jews, muslims etc, then no one has a say to what they believe.

amen to that, no pun intended etc.

[Adi Shankara]

I hope you are not apologising for Lamaist theocratic feudal landlordism, which is one of the worst forms of feudalism that has ever existed.

How do you come to that conclusion? I didn't even mention anywhere sympathy for the feudalism in Tibet. the only thing I've ever repeatedly stated was that the PRC is as bad as the feudal states (because there wasn't just one) of Tibet.

If your source of Tibetan religion comes from the Nobel Peace Prize winner Dalai Lama given out by the imperialist USA, then your views are very biased.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't. I read a few sources, my most recent favorite being "A Cultural History of Tibet" by David Snellgrove.


I suggest you read some socialist sources instead. If you don't trust PRC sources, then there are some good articles published by the PSL which is US-based.

Yeah right, I'm going to read an account of religion from the PSL :rolleyes:

I don't look for a partisan slant in history when I read history, hence while I often read two accounts of the same history to arrive to a more sound conclusion. Also, the PSL viewed Mao Zedong favorably and worship the ground he walks on, so I'm not about to trust them.


Tibetan Buddhism is one of the three major branches of Buddhist religion. All the brutal oppression of the serfs in Tibet was explicitly conducted in the name of Buddhism.

And Enver Hoxha, Josef Stalin, and Fidel Castro persecuted gays in the name of Communism and Dialectical Materialism. Does that mean we should disown Marxism? of course not, that's moronic.


Therefore by definition Buddhism is responsible for the oppression in Tibet.

That's fucking stupid. should we blame fire for arsonists burning houses? should we blame guns for school shooters killing students?


You can't just say "Tibetan Buddhism is oppressive but it isn't really Buddhism", that's dodging the issue.

I didn't say that. I said that Tibetan Buddhism is just a subsect of a religion that has some 400,000,000 adherents.


Similarly I think Leninism cannot deny responsibility for people like Pol Pot. After all, it was all done in the name of Leninism. This is partly why I'm partly influenced by anarchism.

That's fucking stupid too, and shows you're in Anarchism for entirely the wrong reason.


Buddhism is a religion that emerged under class society. Therefore by definition it is qualitatively different from tribal religions like Shamanism. It may be less oppressive quantitatively than Western Christianity or even Chinese Confucianism, but fundamentally it is still an instrument of class oppression.

A religion that tells you to detach from this reality to let go of suffering that comes from arousal in want is "an instrument of class oppression"? Buddhism isn't even political.


Besides, note that I'm not even attacking Buddhism directly here

Really? because you repeatedly done so.


People have the freedom of religious belief (as long as it does not discriminate against other people), but for socialists people do not have the freedom to be a landlord. Buddhist landlords, like Christian landlords and atheist landlords, must all be forcefully dispossessed by the revolutionary government. That's what communism means. Just because a landlord happens to be a peaceful religious man doesn't make him any less of a landlord or any less reactionary.

I'd agree with this. I don't see why a religious leader needs properties in the first place anyways.


The PRC for instance did not completely oppose Buddhism in Tibet, apart from during a few years of the Cultural Revolution when the policy became somewhat ultra-leftist, it only opposed Buddhist landlordism.

They opposed Buddhism in Tibet because Tibetan Buddhism is deeply tied to the culture of Tibet, and thus they were afraid of liberation movements rising in Tibet, esp. those that could've happened in the early 60's shortly after the conquering of Tibet.

[Queercommie Girl]

the only thing I've ever repeatedly stated was that the PRC is as bad as the feudal states (because there wasn't just one) of Tibet.


That's obviously a wrong view too. Although the PRC has its problems, objectively speaking Tibet did progress under the PRC compared when it was under feudalism. Even orthodox Trotskyists like the CWI that are explicitly anti-Maoist (they don't allow me to formally join because I'm partially a Maoist) recognise that objectively Tibet progressed under the PRC relative to feudalism.

Also it's funny how you could have such a double standard when it comes to the PRC and the USSR. You seem to oppose the ethnic policy in the PRC but embrace the ethnic policy of the USSR, but in actual fact objectively they are mostly the same, apart from semantically using different terms. You think for example Tibet and Afghanistan are a world apart, but in reality they are not. The majority of the poor in Tibet supported the CCP, and even certain sections of the educated classes did too.



Yeah right, I'm going to read an account of religion from the PSL :rolleyes:

I don't look for a partisan slant in history when I read history, hence while I often read two accounts of the same history to arrive to a more sound conclusion. Also, the PSL viewed Mao Zedong favorably and worship the ground he walks on, so I'm not about to trust them.
Socialists should be "partisan" when analysing history and religion.

The PSL does not "worship" Mao Zedong, where did you get that from? They don't even call themselves Maoist, and they disagree with China siding with the US against the revisionist USSR after the 1970s. Their view of both Mao and Trotsky is relatively objective and balanced.



And Enver Hoxha, Josef Stalin, and Fidel Castro persecuted gays in the name of Communism and Dialectical Materialism. Does that mean we should disown Marxism? of course not, that's moronic.
Why are you bringing in homosexuality into this? That's not the topic of this discussion at all. We are talking about oppression against serfs in feudal Tibet. Actually even in feudal Tibet there was no systematic oppression of queer people unlike in feudal Europe, but LGBT politics is only a small subset of socialist politics in general.



That's fucking stupid. should we blame fire for arsonists burning houses? should we blame guns for school shooters killing students?
Don't call me "fucking stupid", you fucking idiot. Your comparison here is a complete non-sequitur. Guns do not instruct people how to shoot, but religions instruct people how to live. One judges others not by what they say, but by what they do; similarly, one judges a religion not by what's in their books, but by the concrete socio-economic implications of the said religion. Even Western imperialists know how to say nice things.



I didn't say that. I said that Tibetan Buddhism is just a subsect of a religion that has some 400,000,000 adherents.
It's one of the three major branches. And it's pointless to just pick on Tibetan Buddhism. Ancient Chinese Buddhism was also oppressive.



That's fucking stupid too, and shows you're in Anarchism for entirely the wrong reason.
Actually it shows you don't know anything about anarchism. The anarchist critique of Leninism is that Leninism is systematically flawed since every single Leninist state that has ever existed in reality has degenerated into a political dictatorship in one form or another.

Are you telling me that suppose an engineer tries to build a house according to a certain plan, and after repeated instances of failure, he/she should not start to get skeptical about the building plan itself but rather should solely put the blame on his/her own poor workmanship? That's the kind of moronic logic you are using here. You are essentially saying: "The political/religious principles are never wrong, it's always how they are applied that is wrong". But if a particular set of principles continuously drive people to do the wrong things, doesn't that cast doubt on the principles themselves too?




A religion that tells you to detach from this reality to let go of suffering that comes from arousal in want is "an instrument of class oppression"? Buddhism isn't even political.
But you could say the same thing about Christianity - in its "pure textual form" Christianity isn't really political either, certain "eastern" religions aren't superior in this sense.

I judge religions not primarily by their texts, but by their concrete institutional impact. Just like I judge other people not by what they say, but by what they do.



Really? because you repeatedly done so.
How so? If I bash a particular form of Christianity for being homophobic and transphobic, does this mean I've insulted Christianity?

If that's your logic, then you are a pathetic apologist for reactionary religion.



They opposed Buddhism in Tibet because Tibetan Buddhism is deeply tied to the culture of Tibet, and thus they were afraid of liberation movements rising in Tibet, esp. those that could've happened in the early 60's shortly after the conquering of Tibet.
Trying to paint the liberation of Tibet by the PRC in Han nationalist colours doesn't work, since the Chinese Communists attacked traditional Han religions and cultures just as hard. Have you seen the Chinese Buddhist temples destroyed during the Cultural Revolution? The CCP might be Stalinist, but it's not Han nationalist.

[Hexen]

Maybe we should leave it alone and see if Marx's theory is correct if religion will disappear or not. If it doesn't then we'll going to deal with it since suppressing/repressing/oppressing it not only doesn't work but also damages Leftism's reputation in the process as seen via history with the Soviets/Maoists/etc even though they were not truly Leftists though.

[Reznov]

What you do in private at your home is your business.

But religious views and other things that lead to bias should tried to be kept at a maximum of very low in any Revolutionary Enviornment.

[Sir Comradical]

Teach an openly atheist curriculum at primary school onwards and get children to have discussions about why religion is illogical. This can be done by placing heavy emphasis on philosophy. Enriching their minds with Marxist theory will expose the utter poverty of traditional religious thought.

[Adi Shankara]

Teach an openly atheist curriculum at primary school onwards and get children to have discussions about why religion is illogical. This can be done by placing heavy emphasis on philosophy. Enriching their minds with Marxist theory will expose the utter poverty of traditional religious thought.

I don't agree with teaching an atheist curriculum--that's an attempt to brainwash. I think that religions (all of the major world ones) or atheism should be taught fairly, or shouldn't be taught at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

What should be emphasised is the scientific method and critical thinking, not necessarily atheism directly.

As I've argued in another thread here, there is no fundamental reason why there cannot exist a scientific spirituality in a socialist/communist society.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/losing-religion-born-t141231/index.html

Well, this is debatable but perhaps "natural scientific spirituality".

Religion and spirituality aren't the same thing. Humans have always had some kind of spirituality, even during the primitive communist era when there was no class oppression.

Religious traditions in class society is primarily reactionary due to its oppressive nature. Primitive spirituality in pre-class societies have no oppressive character, its only shortcoming is that due to the objective limitations of its time, it was not rational and scientific but rather superstitious. But I think we cannot rule out that in post-class society after the revolution, which Engels explicitly describes as a return to the conditions of primitive communism but on a higher technological and civilisational level, there will still be "natural spirituality", but this time no longer superstitious but rather based on the most advanced ideas of future science and technology.

My beef with religion is no other than 2 things:

1) the fact that religion historically has often been associated with reactionary socio-economic and political structures;

2) the fact that religion is fundamentally opposed to the scientific method and critical thinking.

Otherwise I'm not against a spiritual outlook on life and the universe generally.

But in a socialist society, religions are no longer allowed to defend reactionary socio-economic and political structures like feudalism and capitalism, and religions shall no longer be "protected" from scientific criticism. Science doesn't attack religion directly, but it has the full right to challenge any explicitly absurd notions like "faith healing" and "virgin birth" that have no shred of real evidence to support them, and religions can no longer justify superstitions based on appeals to "tradition".

[Red Poplar]

I can mention SFR Yugoslavia as an example, since I live in one of its former republics:

After SFRY was fully established in 1945, its president JB Tito at first seeked an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. He wanted to separate Church in Yugoslavia from the Vatican and create an independent state religion, but of course he was firmly rejected. After that, he decided to eliminate religion from the society, but he was well aware that a vast majority of Yugoslav people were Christians, and that it would be a tough mission. So finally a Vatican-Yugoslavia concordat was signed, and the Constitution of SFRY guaranteed "freedom of religion", however it wasn't so in practice. The Party monitored churches to find if directors or other important persons were religious, so such individuals were "undermined", to put it that way.

In my opinion, religion should be a private matter, since it has nothing to do with the state. On the other hand, the state has no right to restrict religious behaviour of its citizens (as long as it doesn't affect functioning of the state).

[Queercommie Girl]

In my opinion, religion should be a private matter, since it has nothing to do with the state. On the other hand, the state has no right to restrict religious behaviour of its citizens (as long as it doesn't affect functioning of the state).

It is however harmful for children to fill their heads with ridiculous ideas like "faith healing" and "virgin birth".

I don't propose attacking spirituality directly, but I think superstitions within religion must be criticised directly. It is a matter of social responsibility. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has the right to fall outside the potential bounds of scientific criticism, including Marxist doctrines themselves.

So the Bible can still be studied, but the Church must explicitly declare that the superstitions in the Bible are just ethical metaphors and should not be taken literally. Also, any racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic interpretations of the Bible must be unconditionally dropped in favour of more progressive interpretations.

In short, I don't agree with attacking religion directly, even in a post-revolutionary society. But the socialist state should indeed interfere in religious matters and reform religions along a more progressive direction. After all, a lot of religious content, in the concrete sense, is very open to interpretation. Socialist governments must encourage the more progressive interpretations over the more reactionary ones.

I think this kind of thing happened to some degree in places like Afghanistan and Tibet. Islam and Buddhism were not destroyed, but they were re-interpreted, so Islam in socialist Afghanistan became much less sexist for example.

[Magón]

I say we handle religion and churches like the Anarchists in Catalonia did in 1936.





































*Sarcasm*

[Sir Comradical]

I don't agree with teaching an atheist curriculum--that's an attempt to brainwash. I think that religions (all of the major world ones) or atheism should be taught fairly, or shouldn't be taught at all.

(1) An atheist curriculum would imply that religious doctrines are illogical. I see no problem with this at all since science classes don't teach alchemy, astrology or creationism, so why should religion be treated as something that's true just because a lot of people believe it? After all, why should religion be immune from criticism? It's just another ideology.

(2) I think knowledge of all world religions should be taught, but they should all be severely criticised and children should be encouraged to say what they really think about stoning people to death for adultery, or going to hell for not believing in Jesus or that your caste is a result of your past karmic debt. You call it brainwashing, I call it liberating.

(3) You're calling it brainwashing under the assumption that objectivity does actually exist, but don't you think there's a lot of brainwashing today under capitalism? As Marx said "the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class", so yes, if workers do manage to seize state power, then what gets taught to children will be radically different.

[Red Rebel]

Our fight is with the capitalists; not God.

Unless a religious institution is part of the State (i.e. the Church in Russia) I don't see why we need to pick a fight with them. A cultural revolution that comes after a Revolution would make religion less popular and I think that would be enough.

[Amphictyonis]

How did nations which undertook socialist revolutions deal with religion? How did the various parties purge or render impotent the numerous superstitions plagueing their country post-revolution? Did they violently force out the religionist or deal with them slowly over time?

Any examples will do.

Disband the church but let people talk about/believe in whatever they want. One can be spiritual without hoisting up some centralized power structure such as the Vatican.

[bcbm]

Our fight is with the capitalists; not God.

speak for yourself

[Amphictyonis]

speak for yourself

God is a lame concept but it's what people do when they group together to "worship"..... the pious dogmatic self righteous religious community groupthink that really bothers me. If they could somehow just believe what they believe in without proselytizing and judging it would be all well and good. The whole self rightous moral indignation thing coupled with the hipocracy and endless war isnt good either.

god doesn't exist it's mans actions that are the problem.

Nero was right! LOL Feed'm to the lions?

[AK]

Organised religion will be abolished by the revolutionary workers. All of the opiates will gradually stop being believed in as people realise religion is no longer necessary for them. Also, we're going to teach kids the facts (based on actual empirical evidence and all that) in schools, not religious dogma.

/thread

[bcbm]

God is a lame concept but it's what people do when they group together to "worship"..... the pious dogmatic self righteous religious community groupthink that really bothers me. If they could somehow just believe what they believe in without proselytizing and judging it would be all well and good. The whole self rightous moral indignation thing coupled with the hipocracy and endless war isnt good either.

god doesn't exist it's mans actions that are the problem.

Nero was right! LOL Feed'm to the lions?

you seem to have misunderstood, i don't care about religious people, i just want to fight god

[Comrade Robert Swain]

Since religion is right-wing, it sught to be banned from society as Marx predicted. Otherwise, we'll be back to the crusades in no time.

[AK]

Since religion is right-wing, it sught to be banned from society as Marx predicted. Otherwise, we'll be back to the crusades in no time.
No.

[bricolage]

Since religion is right-wing,
Is it?

it sught to be banned from society

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.

8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

How are you going to ban beliefs?


as Marx predicted.Did he?
I'm sure he predicted it would wither away without class society and to a large degree I'd agree, I don't think he ever predicted it should be banned.


Otherwise, we'll be back to the crusades in no time.I seriously seriously doubt it.

[Amphictyonis]

you seem to have misunderstood, i don't care about religious people, i just want to fight god

How can you fight a thing that doesn't exist? ;)

[Magón]

How can you fight a thing that doesn't exist? ;)

By creating a golem of the human representation of God, and duking it out till only one is left standing... Like that Carlos Mencia episode where Muhammed, God, and Moses fight it out in a ring, and the last one standing is the ultimate religion. (There's a twist to it though. :lol: )

[Queercommie Girl]

Our fight is with the capitalists; not God.

Unless a religious institution is part of the State (i.e. the Church in Russia) I don't see why we need to pick a fight with them. A cultural revolution that comes after a Revolution would make religion less popular and I think that would be enough.

What about when the religion is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, or when it discriminates against people of other religions, (like saying anyone who doesn't follow "my religion" is going straight to hell) should it just be allowed to discriminate against other people? I really don't think so.

Three things religions are not allowed to do in a post-revolutionary society:

1) Defend reactionary socio-economic and political structures, such as landlordism and capitalism;

2) Discriminate against any section of the population on any basis;

3) Be protected from valid scientific and rational criticism.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

To put Buddhism and Shamanism into the same category is a mistake. Shamanism is a tribal religion that is not politically or socio-economically oppressive, but Buddhism is an oppressive religion. In pre-revolutionary Tibet for instance the Buddhist lamas were the biggest landlords in the country.

The specific context I was referring to was the persecution of Chinese Mahayana Buddhists. (I am aware that PRC apologists have a hard time telling Chinese and Tibetans apart) Mahayana Buddhism is arguably a syncretism of Buddhism and Taoism and the Mahayana secret societies were rightly viewed as a threat to the new bourgeois social order.


It's not really "persecution". The said religions are not just "innocent" belief systems, but an integral part of the landlordist and bourgeois economic structure, like the Tibetan Buddhist Lamas, who were the biggest landlords in pre-revolutionary Tibet.

However that doesn't indicate that Buddhism is an "integral part of the landlordist and bourgeois economic structure". (Your reference to the "bourgeois economic structure" is especially confusing regarding the situation in Tibet since the Tibetans were first assimilated into the "bourgeois economic structure" by the Chinese Communist Party)

I would argue that Buddhism began in India as a progressive anti-fuedal political movement. I myself am not a Buddhist, but a good Buddhist would make a very bad capitalist slave.


Currently here in the UK the Church of England is one of the country's biggest landlords. Are you suggesting that if the UK has a socialist revolution now, we should not appropriate all CoE property and land just because it is a religious institution? Yes, we should, but this has nothing to do with Christianity as such. Christianity in this context is just a window-dressing for capitalist exploitation.


the only thing that should be done in this area would be to encourage scientific and rational education. "The school systems are gauged to teach youth what to think, not how to think." - George Jackson


Tibet was a semi-tribal society until the Mongol period, so before then class society was not as well established in Tibet as it was in China.

I disagree with your historical analysis, Tibet was actually still "semi-tribal/semi-fuedal" (if you will) when the PRC annexed Tibet, what remained of this "semi-tribalism" (ie: primitive communism) was brutally and coercively replaced with the misery of proletarian existence. (For the benefit, of course, of the 'Marxist' bureaucrat-bourgeoisie)


This explains why pre-Lamaist religion (a mixture of Buddhism and Tibet's native tribal Bon religion) in Tibet was less oppressive than Lamaist Buddhism.So Buddhism existed in Tibet before Lamaist feudalism, therefore there's nothing inherently feudal about Buddhism...


I hope you are not apologising for Lamaist theocratic feudal landlordism, which is one of the worst forms of feudalism that has ever existed.Don't be melodramatic. The totalitarian grip of the fuedal landlords' talons was not as tight in Tibet as in other historical situations, (eg: Europe) into the 20th century vast tracts of Tibetan territory were still totally autonomous from feudal rule. (not out of any compassion or benevolence on the feudal landlords' part but due to the material limitations of their political structure) When the foot-soldiers of red capitalist bureaucracy marched into Tibet, many of the Tibetans who fought back were resisting the first modern attempt to impose political authority on their lives.


If your source of Tibetan religion comes from the Nobel Peace Prize winner Dalai Lama given out by the imperialist USA, then your views are very biased.The Dalai Lama was not mentioned, and is unpopular among Tibetan national liberationists due to his accomidationist / pro-imperialist policies. This is a broiler-plate ad hominem commonly used by those who think the imperialist conquest of Tibet was a "progressive" historical event.


I suggest you read some socialist sources instead.Reading nothing but "socialist sources" is a recipe for sycophantic, dogmatic ideology. Once again George Jackson's remarks on education come to mind.


If you don't trust PRC sources, then there are some good articles published by the PSL which is US-based.Are you serious?


Tibetan Buddhism is one of the three major branches of Buddhist religion. All the brutal oppression of the serfs in Tibet was explicitly conducted in the name of Buddhism. Therefore by definition Buddhism is responsible for the oppression in Tibet.This is an idealistic rather than materialistic analysis of the historical circumstances.


[Bourgeois ideology] proclaim that it is the thoughts, the ideas, the will of human groups that determine social phenomena. Against these ideologies, which we call bourgeois because they are ideologies for the defense of capitalism, against these past, present and future idealists, Marxism has demonstrated that, on the contrary, it is social relations that determine ideological movements.


Buddhism is a religion that emerged under class society. Therefore by definition it is qualitatively different from tribal religions like Shamanism. It may be less oppressive quantitatively than Western Christianity or even Chinese Confucianism, but fundamentally it is still an instrument of class oppression.Marxism also "emerged under class society", does that make Marxism an "instrument of class oppression"?


Buddhist landlords, like Christian landlords and atheist landlords, must all be forcefully dispossessed by the revolutionary government.Yes, what happened in the PRC however was that the 'Buddhist' landlords were disposessed by a more efficient and more pervasive system of landlordism. (ie: Stalinist state-capitalism)


The PRC for instance did not completely oppose Buddhism in Tibet, apart from during a few years of the Cultural Revolution when the policy became somewhat ultra-leftistActually, that's completely incorrect. At the height of the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese Communist Party was actively engaged in purging its remaining "ultra-leftist" elements. Unless you're just continuing the tradition of using "ultra-leftist" as a synonym for "bad".



That's obviously a wrong view too. Although the PRC has its problems, objectively speaking Tibet did progress under the PRC compared when it was under feudalism.

Which is why the Tibetan masses resisted assimilation into the "progressive" Chinese state with violence? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising) I don't call being disarmed and marched into factories and schools "progress"...

The again there are "Marxists" who think the European conquest of North America was "progressive" as well...


Even orthodox Trotskyists like the CWI that are explicitly anti-Maoist (they don't allow me to formally join because I'm partially a Maoist) recognise that objectively Tibet progressed under the PRC relative to feudalism.Both organizations are irrelevant in regards to the political situation in Tibet, they might as well be arguing about historical events that occurred on the dark side of the Moon.


Also it's funny how you could have such a double standard when it comes to the PRC and the USSR. You seem to oppose the ethnic policy in the PRC but embrace the ethnic policy of the USSR, but in actual fact objectively they are mostly the sameYes, objectively they were the same. For example the atrocities committed against Tibetans by the PRC was very similar to the USSR's atrocities committed against Siberians and other colonized ethnic groups.


You think for example Tibet and Afghanistan are a world apart, but in reality they are not. Even under Lamaist feudalism, women and trans-folk enjoyed more freedoms than in pre-Soviet Afghanistan.


The majority of the poor in Tibet supported the CCPThis claim cannot be substantiated. Why did the 1959 uprising occur?


Socialists should be "partisan" when analysing history and religion.

Yes but they're also supposed to base their anaylsis on material reality, not preconception.


The PSL does not "worship" Mao Zedong, where did you get that from? They don't even call themselves Maoist, and they disagree with China siding with the US against the revisionist USSR after the 1970s.Most Maoists are critical of Chinese capitalism "after the 1970s", they just blame it on "revisionism" instead of the fundamental flaws of democratic centralism.


Their view of both Mao and Trotsky is relatively objective and balanced.This sounds like brainwashed cultism...


Why are you bringing in homosexuality into this? That's not the topic of this discussion at all. We are talking about oppression against serfs in feudal Tibet. Actually even in feudal Tibet there was no systematic oppression of queer people unlike in feudal Europe, but LGBT politics is only a small subset of socialist politics in general.It's relevant because the condition of Tibetan queers deteriorated as a consequence of rampant homophobia within the Party right. (As you said, "even in feudal Tibet there was no systematic oppression of queer people unlike in feudal Europe", whereas the Party right in China had a long tradition of suppressing queers)

Also it is not a "small subset" for those impacted by the issue.


Actually it shows you don't know anything about anarchism. The anarchist critique of Leninism is that Leninism is systematically flawed since every single Leninist state that has ever existed in reality has degenerated into a political dictatorship in one form or another.Agreed, you should apply this line of reasoning to its practical conclusion...


Are you telling me that suppose an engineer tries to build a house according to a certain plan, and after repeated instances of failure, he/she should not start to get skeptical about the building plan itself but rather should solely put the blame on his/her own poor workmanship? That's the kind of moronic logic you are using here. You are essentially saying: "The political/religious principles are never wrong, it's always how they are applied that is wrong".You yourself have admitted that relatively free societies have existed with religion, (Ignoring the mostly apocryphal linguistic distinction between "religion" and "spirituality") hence your vaguely positive comments about shamanism.


But if a particular set of principles continuously drive people to do the wrong things, doesn't that cast doubt on the principles themselves too?Again, the Crusades, the witch-hunts, and so forth, were not "driven" by the principles of Judaism or early Christianity, but by the social relations of exploitation.


But you could say the same thing about Christianity - in its "pure textual form" Christianity isn't really political either, certain "eastern" religions aren't superior in this sense.I agree, early Christianity was a progressive historical force, before it was co-opted by the Roman state via the ideology of Pauline Christianity.

I judge religions not primarily by their texts, but by their concrete institutional impact. Just like I judge other people not by what they say, but by what they do.


Trying to paint the liberation of Tibet by the PRC in Han nationalist colours doesn't work, since the Chinese Communists attacked traditional Han religions and cultures just as hard.The fact that you refer to a systematic campaign of coercive military invasion and occupation as "liberation" illustrates that you haven't gotten over orthodox Maoist ideological indoctrination offered by groups such as the PSL. These statements stand in irreconcilable contradiction to your statements regarding the historical failure of Leninism as understood by the anarchists.

The Chinese Communist Party was not Han nationalist but they used Han nationalist sentiment to rattle the sabers to invade the western territories. Today many Han settlers are bigoted Han nationalists just as many US whites are bigoted against blacks, Latinos, American Indians, etc.

the attack on "traditional Han religions" such as Buddhism and Taoism was, as I previously explained, a counter-insurgency strategy on the part of the 'red' bourgeoisie, it had nothing to do with suppressing "reactionaries" and everything to do with demanding proletarian discipline and subordination tot the new bourgeois state.

The same philistine thugs who smashed Taoist and Buddhist temples also burnt Beethoven records and lead witch-hunts against any factions of the CCP that retained the liberatory direction and focus of Marxist political philosophy. ("Ultra-leftists" as your buddies in the PSL like to call them)

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

(1) An atheist curriculum would imply that religious doctrines are illogical. I see no problem with this at all since science classes don't teach alchemy, astrology or creationism, so why should religion be treated as something that's true just because a lot of people believe it?

I think I see a problem: Compulsory institutes of centralized 'education' are temples of bourgeois indoctrination and must be smashed.

Also traditional schools of alchemy and astrology are actually more scientifically coherent than most of the claptrap mass-produced by tedious and joyless state-bureaucrats to fill the pages of capitalist science textbooks.

[Queercommie Girl]

The specific context I was referring to was the persecution of Chinese Mahayana Buddhists. (I am aware that PRC apologists have a hard time telling Chinese and Tibetans apart) Mahayana Buddhism is arguably a syncretism of Buddhism and Taoism and the Mahayana secret societies were rightly viewed as a threat to the new bourgeois social order.


I never said you were specifically talking about Tibetan Buddhism. But then does it really matter? Mahayana Buddhism in Han regions of China was also a reactionary religion of the landlord class. Of course, Han landlords were relatively progressive compared with Tibetan landlords, the former productive relation being based on leasehold landlordism and the latter being based on direct serfdom, and in Lamaist Tibet land centralisation was a bigger problem. But essentially there is no difference.

Since when have socialists become reactionary apologists for traditional religions? I don't deny that Buddhism was still significantly more progressive compared with Western Christianity in many ways, but keynesianism is more progressive than neo-liberalism. Does this mean Marxists should become keynesians now?



However that doesn't indicate that Buddhism is an "integral part of the landlordist and bourgeois economic structure". (Your reference to the "bourgeois economic structure" is especially confusing regarding the situation in Tibet since the Tibetans were first assimilated into the "bourgeois economic structure" by the Chinese Communist Party)
In Tibet, Lamaism was an integral part of landlordist productive relation, that's an objective fact.

I don't accept that the PRC is a "state-capitalist" state during Mao's era. China today might indeed be state-capitalist but not in 1950.



I would argue that Buddhism began in India as a progressive anti-fuedal political movement. I myself am not a Buddhist, but a good Buddhist would make a very bad capitalist slave.
Well yes, historically it was relatively progressive, compared with say orthodox Hinduism that supported the reactionary caste structure.

However, technically Buddhism was not anti-feudal, it was anti-slavery, it emerged during ancient India's slavery-feudalism transition, just as Confucianism and Daoism emerged during ancient China's slavery-feudalism transition.



Yes, we should, but this has nothing to do with Christianity as such. Christianity in this context is just a window-dressing for capitalist exploitation.

"The school systems are gauged to teach youth what to think, not how to think." - George Jackson
In actual practice it would be difficult to distill "Christianity in the abstract" from "Christianity in actual socio-economic practice" which in Europe was intimately tied up with feudalism and capitalism.



I disagree with your historical analysis, Tibet was actually still "semi-tribal/semi-fuedal" (if you will) when the PRC annexed Tibet, what remained of this "semi-tribalism" (ie: primitive communism) was brutally and coercively replaced with the misery of proletarian existence. (For the benefit, of course, of the 'Marxist' bureaucrat-bourgeoisie)
That's ridiculous. How can you deny the existence of big landlords in pre-revolutionary Tibet?



So Buddhism existed in Tibet before Lamaist feudalism, therefore there's nothing inherently feudal about Buddhism...
I said Tibet was semi-tribal semi-feudal in pre-Lamaist times, not that it was completely non-feudal. There is a difference.

I don't in principle rule out a kind of "socialist Buddhism" in the abstract sense, just like in principle I don't necessarily reject spirituality in general. However, historically Buddhism was always associated with some kind of class society.



Don't be melodramatic. The totalitarian grip of the fuedal landlords' talons was not as tight in Tibet as in other historical situations, (eg: Europe) into the 20th century vast tracts of Tibetan territory were still totally autonomous from feudal rule. (not out of any compassion or benevolence on the feudal landlords' part but due to the material limitations of their political structure) When the foot-soldiers of red capitalist bureaucracy marched into Tibet, many of the Tibetans who fought back were resisting the first modern attempt to impose political authority on their lives.
I didn't say Tibetan feudalism was necessarily more reactionary in European feudalism. But then European feudalism disappeared long before the 20th century.

As I said, I completely reject the notion that the Maoists in early PRC were state-capitalists.



Reading nothing but "socialist sources" is a recipe for sycophantic, dogmatic ideology. Once again George Jackson's remarks on education come to mind.
There is a class line in everything. There is no such thing as "purely universal truth".



This is an idealistic rather than materialistic analysis of the historical circumstances.
?



Marxism also "emerged under class society", does that make Marxism an "instrument of class oppression"?
Marxism explicitly seeks to abolish class society, and while religions like Buddhism may have some partially progressive features depending on your interpretation, do not explicitly call for a classless society.



Actually, that's completely incorrect. At the height of the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese Communist Party was actively engaged in purging its remaining "ultra-leftist" elements. Unless you're just continuing the tradition of using "ultra-leftist" as a synonym for "bad".
No, just that ultra-leftists tend to be militant anti-theists and anti-religionists who would take a harder line against religions. I mean we can see that right here on RevLeft.

As for the Cultural Revolution, well it was a constant continuing political struggle both within and outside the Communist Party. You can't speak of the Communist Party as if it was just a single united authority.



Which is why the Tibetan masses resisted assimilation into the "progressive" Chinese state with violence? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising) I don't call being disarmed and marched into factories and schools "progress"...
Not everyone welcomed the Chinese communists, but the majority of the poor did support the CCP. History is never a perfect utopia.



The again there are "Marxists" who think the European conquest of North America was "progressive" as well...
It was not in terms of productive relation, but objectively it had some "progressive" elements in terms of increasing productivity.



Both organizations are irrelevant in regards to the political situation in Tibet, they might as well be arguing about historical events that occurred on the dark side of the Moon.
The point is that one does not have to be a Maoist to recognise the objective progress that occurred in post-revolutionary Tibet.



Yes, objectively they were the same. For example the atrocities committed against Tibetans by the PRC was very similar to the USSR's atrocities committed against Siberians and other colonized ethnic groups.
My point was that while I disagree with you, your views are at least consistent. The same cannot be said about Shankara, who is in my view a cypto-racist towards Chinese people and constantly applies a ridiculous double standard when it comes to the USSR and the PRC.



Even under Lamaist feudalism, women and trans-folk enjoyed more freedoms than in pre-Soviet Afghanistan.
That's true, which is one reason why Buddhism is relatively progressive compared with Islam in this sense. But LGBT issues is not the topic of this thread.



This claim cannot be substantiated. Why did the 1959 uprising occur?
Not everyone was happy with the termination of landlordist productive relations in Tibet.



Most Maoists are critical of Chinese capitalism "after the 1970s", they just blame it on "revisionism" instead of the fundamental flaws of democratic centralism.
Left Maoists argue that the emergence of revisionism and bureaucratic capitalism is due to the lack of proletarian democracy.

To mechanically counter-pose "democracy" and "centralism" is un-dialectical and absurd.



This sounds like brainwashed cultism...
?



It's relevant because the condition of Tibetan queers deteriorated as a consequence of rampant homophobia within the Party right. (As you said, "even in feudal Tibet there was no systematic oppression of queer people unlike in feudal Europe", whereas the Party right in China had a long tradition of suppressing queers)

Also it is not a "small subset" for those impacted by the issue.
I'm certainly not dismissing the queers in Tibet, or saying that somehow their experience was less important simply because they were a small minority. However, you can't justify serfdom in feudal Tibet just because there was no systematic oppression of LGBT people. Also, it is utopian to think that in feudal Buddhist Tibet LGBT people had complete equality just because there was no systematic oppression like there was in Christianity and Islam.



Agreed, you should apply this line of reasoning to its practical conclusion...
I have done this a long time ago. The difference between a Marxist like me and an anarchist like you is that you solely focus on the productive relation and the political superstructure and the "lack of democracy", but I also look at the productive forces and the economic base. I can recognise the partially progressive features of Stalinist industry even though it was done through huge human cost. For you the objective manifestation of Leninism in the 20th century is wholly negative, but for me it is clearly not. So while as I've repeatedly emphasised here on RevLeft I do not in any way worship Lenin and admit that he made mistakes, the fact that I acknowledge certain structural flaws in Leninism does not imply that I reject Leninism completely at all. I still essentially agree with the Leninist position. Also, you like to see the world in purely "black-and-white" terms, but I see the world as a mixture of good and bad in the colour grey.



You yourself have admitted that relatively free societies have existed with religion, (Ignoring the mostly apocryphal linguistic distinction between "religion" and "spirituality") hence your vaguely positive comments about shamanism.
The linguistic difference between "religion" and "spirituality" in any kind of fundamental and intrinsic sense is not important, but in practice since the term "religion" is already heavily associated with the traditional faiths that have dominated the history of human class society, using the term "spirituality" to refer to non-oppressive forms of religions can help to avoid confusion.

Pre-class religions are qualitatively better in that they are not fundamentally oppressive in the socio-economic and political senses. But they are still plagued with superstitions and contradicts the scientific method and critical philosophical thinking.



Again, the Crusades, the witch-hunts, and so forth, were not "driven" by the principles of Judaism or early Christianity, but by the social relations of exploitation.
This is true in the abstract sense, which is why I've said before that Marxism does not agree with militant atheism. In principle it is possible to have "socialist religion/spirituality", but when one analyses history, it is impossible to separate "religion in the abstract" from the reactionary socio-economic and political structures it has become fundamentally entangled with.



The fact that you refer to a systematic campaign of coercive military invasion and occupation as "liberation" illustrates that you haven't gotten over orthodox Maoist ideological indoctrination offered by groups such as the PSL. These statements stand in irreconcilable contradiction to your statements regarding the historical failure of Leninism as understood by the anarchists.
PSL is not a Maoist party.

I never said Leninism is a failure. I said there are certain flaws in Leninism, but they can be reformed.



The Chinese Communist Party was not Han nationalist but they used Han nationalist sentiment to rattle the sabers to invade the western territories. Today many Han settlers are bigoted Han nationalists just as many US whites are bigoted against blacks, Latinos, American Indians, etc.
I don't deny the existence of racism in China, but this is the product of capitalism, not the policies of the CCP during the Maoist era.



the attack on "traditional Han religions" such as Buddhism and Taoism was, as I previously explained, a counter-insurgency strategy on the part of the 'red' bourgeoisie, it had nothing to do with suppressing "reactionaries" and everything to do with demanding proletarian discipline and subordination tot the new bourgeois state.
How can you fail to recognise that traditional Han religions also had close associations with reactionary socio-economic structures such as landlordism?

Your views are not objective. You just constantly bash the CCP and everything they've done rather than examining the concrete social and economic factors.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

I never said you were specifically talking about Tibetan Buddhism. But then does it really matter?

Not really but it's a double standard to attack Buddhism as an alien colonizing force in Tibet, considering the PRC had no respect for the religious freedoms of Bönpos.


Mahayana Buddhism in Han regions of China was also a reactionary religion of the landlord class.This is a historically inaccurate overgeneralization, the Pai-lien chiao for example was a Buddhist secret society in Han China that was comprised of the most exploited social classes and was a force of progressive popular unrest in feudal and semi-fuedal/semi-colonial China.

Thus it should be obvious that the PLA feared Buddhists for the same reason they feared the Red Guards


keynesianism is more more progressive than neo-liberalism.Not really, but that's a separate historical argument.


In Tibet, Lamaism was an integral part of landlordist productive relation, that's an objective fact.Yes.


I don't accept that the PRC is a "state-capitalist" state during Mao's era. China today might indeed be state-capitalist but not in 1950.

It was a very dynamic and nuanced historical period but the forces of 'state-capitalism' were at work.


How can you deny the existence of big landlords in pre-revolutionary Tibet?How can you deny the historical reality of tribal bands that existed outside the periphery of feudal landlordism in Tibet up into the Chinese "liberation"?


I completely reject the notion that the Maoists in early PRC were state-capitalists.Which is not my argument.


There is a class line in everything. There is no such thing as "purely universal truth".There is also no such thing as an ideologically correct "line", focusing on historical materials that reinforce your ideological preconceptions is an exercise in intellectual mediocrity.


?Eg: The USSR, PRC, and Democratic Kampuchea failed because Lenin and Mao had "bad ideas" not because of material social relationships.


Marxism explicitly seeks to abolish class society, and while religions like Buddhism may have some partially progressive features depending on your interpretation, do not explicitly call for a classless society.You're over-generalizing, in my opinion. http://uqconnect.net/slsoc/bsq/marxbud.htm


No, just that ultra-leftists tend to be militant anti-theists and anti-religionists who would take a harder line against religions. I mean we can see that right here on RevLeft.You're using the chatter of teenagers of RevLeft to articulate an argument about the historical conditions of revolutionary China.

In the Chinese context the "ultra left" were the Red Guards who were purged by the PLA in synchronicity with the Cultural Revolution.


You can't speak of the Communist Party as if it was just a single united authority.Obviously not. Which is not my intention. My intention is to articulate the opinion that the suppression of Buddhist, Taoist, and Bön organizations under was an effort of calculated capitalist-counter insurgency by the fledgling Party right, justified through a half-baked misapplication of early 20th century communist critiques of Confucianism.


History is never a perfect utopia.Yes but you don't have to be a "utopian" to oppose the valorization efforts of aspiring "socialist" bourgeoisie, especially when it's at the total expense of another people's self-determination and freedom.


It was not in terms of productive relation, but objectively it had some "progressive" elements in terms of increasing productivity.To quote Kasama's token anarchist:


The question of Maoist idealism is interesting.
If you look at the orthodox interpretation of the GPCR, its not a class struggle over the control of the means of the production, but a ideological struggle which “touches people in their very souls”, these who raised the question of the overthrow of the bureaucrat bourgeois as a class operating within actual material production relations were suppressed by the end of the 60′s.
Not to mention that anybody who has read “theory of the subject” knows from hard personal experience that Western Maoists are allergic to political economy.
I think the class roots of this can be found in Maoism’s role as a ideology of the left wing of the bureaucrat bourgeois
which forms the material basis of the insoluble contradiction at its heart between communism and populist romanticism.
There is world of difference between the autonomist conception of the organic emergence of the politics of the class out of the lived experience of exploitation by the workers and the Maoist idea of a semi-theological “correct line” ( read Negri’s essays from the 70′s, then contrast them with some PCP documents).

[...]

he destruction of “individual lives” in the USSR and the PRC had very little to do with the alleged defects of “utopian ideology”.
It was a function of a drive for rapid accumulation that could only be carried out through the super-exploitation of the direct producers, which must be contextualized in terms of the failure of 20th century revolutions ( despite the massive potential they opened)to make a decisive break with the CMP.
Even the Khmer Rouge were not so much starry eyed utopians as committed shock modernizers seeking to accumulate sufficient capital for national industrialization as quickly as possible through the sale of agricultural commodities on the world market, human consequences be dammed.
As the Italian Communist Left pointed out a long time ago, a socialist development strategy would have to involve a reduction in the accumulation rate and a focus on necessary consumption goods, the dictatorship of human need over the accumulation imperative.

[...]

Of course there are “non-exploitative” ways of development,however the Soviet collectivization drive and the Great Leap Forward certainly do not qualify as such.
One of the fundamental problems of “really existing socialism” in its varied incarnations was a confusion between rapid modernization and technical development on the one hand and the emergence of non-exploitative social relations on the other.
A modernization which was carried out within a implicitly capitalist framework and which required the suppression or cooption of resistance by the producers.
Both the Kolkhoz and the Chinese commune represented specific forms of a transition into large scale mechanized capitalist agriculture and the further separation of the producers from the means of production ( although in the Chinese case with very real social benefits and a interesting shift in power relations in some areas during the Cultural Revolution).
A socialist development model cannot be based off consigning the workers to starvation in order to intensify the rate of accumulation, which was a indisputable element of Soviet and Maoist economic policy.
This has nothing to do with the feverish exaggerations of right wing hack “historians”,its also acknowledged by even sympathetic authorities like Bettelheim and Dongping Han.
A socialist policy would prioritize equality,the satisfaction of subsistence needs and the self determination of the producers over rapid accumulation.
The Russian and Chinese revolutions opened up immense possibilities and absolutely should be defended from attacks by conservative propagandists, however they also failed to successfully transcend capitalist production relations.
This is not a matter for sectarian point scoring ( its not as if anarchists or anyone else did any better), but a matter of historical fact.
Unless you subscribe to apologetic theories of “transition to socialism” which enshrine the perpetuation of capitalist production relations for a more or less indefinite period as correct “communist” policy, I see no way to uphold the “socialism” of Russia in 1940 or China in 1970 (if social welfare programs and forms of workplace co-management equaled “socialism” we would have to add Sweden in 1970 to the list as well..).
Socialism entails the suppression of commodity exchange and value relations, equal distribution, and political rule by the direct producers, communism is a hypothetical future stage of completely free distribution.
For China to have advanced to socialism, a real and not only “cultural” revolution would have been necessary, just as some of the Red Guards pointed out at the time.


The point is that one does not have to be a Maoist to recognise the objective progress that occurred in post-revolutionary Tibet.It just seems like a conceptual limitation. If you're not an orthodox Maoist than you must be some sort of orthodox Trotskyist, as if those were the only options.


My point was that while I disagree with you, your views are at least consistent.Thank you for your compliment, I enjoy your posts as well.


That's true, which is one reason why Buddhism is relatively progressive compared with Islam in this sense. But LGBT issues is not the topic of this thread.It's relevant to the topic of the thread if historical Buddhist communities were more progressive in regards to the issue than some of the self-proclaimed communist liberators.


Not everyone was happy with the termination of landlordist productive relations in Tibet.To be accurate the uprising began among the lower social classes in Tibet as a backlash against gun control policies. Nothing to do with defending "landlordism" except in the lies of orthodox Maoist historical revisionism.


Left Maoists argue that the emergence of revisionism and bureaucratic capitalism is due to the lack of proletarian democracy.I agree and the invasion of Tibet is a perfect example.


To mechanically counter-pose "democracy" and "centralism" is un-dialectical and absurd.I think "centralism" in this context is a dialectical antithesis of "democracy", as the Chinese lesson teaches us.


?Trusting the PSL as a reliable authority on the Tibetan national issue is like trusting Christopher Hitchens as a reliable authority on the "War on Terrorism".


I'm certainly not dismissing the queers in Tibet, or saying that somehow their experience was less important simply because they were a small minority. However, you can't justify serfdom in feudal Tibet just because there was no systematic oppression of LGBT peopleI'm an anarchist rather than a Marxist* and I do not believe in historical determinism. The liberation of the Tibetan people from feudal serfdom did not depend upon the accumulation of industrial capital by the bureaucratic bourgeoisie.** Regardless Tibet was a very large area and much of it was not under the control of the fuedal landlords, however thanks to the "Cultural Revolution" the entire Tibetan nation was plunged into the proletariat.

The good news is that Marx is right and the emergence the proletariat creates the conditions for the collapse of capitalism.

*Remember that Marx and Engels were highly critical of Marxism as an ideology and a label.
**Every feudal period of history had mass resistance towards generally communist goals, the fact that these movements did not succeed is no discredit considering the proletariat has failed to achieve any substantial autonomy in the capitalist era.


Also, it is utopian to think that in feudal Buddhist Tibet LGBT people had complete equality just because there was no systematic oppression like there was in Christianity and Islam.Yes but red bureaucratic state-capitalism was in many ways worse, not just in regards to the "LGBT" issue.


I have done this a long time ago. The difference between a Marxist like me and an anarchist like you is that you solely focus on the productive relation and the political superstructure and the "lack of democracy", but I also look at the productive forces and the economic base.I thought the point Marxism was to explain economic forces based on productive relationships.


I can recognise the partially progressive features of Stalinist industry even though it was done through huge human cost.What will be gained from this mental exercise?


For you the objective manifestation of Leninism in the 20th century is wholly negativeDon't put words in my mouth.


The linguistic difference between "religion" and "spirituality" in any kind of fundamental and intrinsic sense is not important, but in practice since the term "religion" is already heavily associated with the traditional faiths that have dominated the history of human class society, using the term "spirituality" to refer to non-oppressive forms of religions can help to avoid confusion.Fair enough but I don't think there needs to be a "litmus test", we can fight for everyone's personal religious freedom.


they are still plagued with superstitions and contradicts the scientific method and critical philosophical thinking.I disagree but that's a debate for another time. What matters is that these people should have the freedom to practice their philosophy regardless of whether or not it is "plagued with superstitions" in the eyes of others.


You just constantly bash the CCP and everything they've doneI'm not trying to be nice.

[blackwave]

I thought the point of socialism / communism was that we want people to be free from domination? If you try and forcibly convert people to atheism then you are guilty of the sort of action you condemn. If people want to believe in something irrational, that is none of your business.

[blackwave]

Of course, it must be added that I am not one of these optimistic 'positive-thinking' atheists that believes that people are 'better off' without religion. As an atheist myself, who used to be a panentheist type, I am aware of the void which is left when it is abandoned.

[Queercommie Girl]

I thought the point of socialism / communism was that we want people to be free from domination? If you try and forcibly convert people to atheism then you are guilty of the sort of action you condemn. If people want to believe in something irrational, that is none of your business.

To "force" people to be atheists is not the point.

However, do you think religious people should have the "freedom" to discriminate others on the basis of race/gender/sexuality etc or discriminate against people of other religions?

People shouldn't have "freedom" if this "freedom" implies removing "freedom" from others.

Furthermore, why should religions be exempt from valid scientific criticism? No-one is saying they don't have the right to believe in religions, because religious freedom is a basic human right, but on the other hand why should religions be exempt from criticism? Shouldn't other people have the freedom to criticise religions too?

Marxism is not militant atheism. In a socialist society people should have freedom of religious belief, but religions must never be allowed to defend capitalism and landlordism, to be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, and other people need to have the right to rationally criticise religions too so religions shouldn't be "protected" from scientific criticism.

I don't see how any genuine socialist would disagree with what I'm advocating here.

[blackwave]

I don't disagree with that at all.

[Magón]

Of course, it must be added that I am not one of these optimistic 'positive-thinking' atheists that believes that people are 'better off' without religion. As an atheist myself, who used to be a panentheist type, I am aware of the void which is left when it is abandoned.

What's this "Void" you're talking about?

[Adi Shankara]

(3) You're calling it brainwashing under the assumption that objectivity does actually exist, but don't you think there's a lot of brainwashing today under capitalism? As Marx said "the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class", so yes, if workers do manage to seize state power, then what gets taught to children will be radically different.

But aren't we trying to escape capitalism? Is saying "because capitalism brainwashed in their education system, we should do so as well" really a good idea?

No. we should provide both viewpoints of the matter, and let students decide. Teach them to think, not blindly obey and listen to what is taught them.

[Adi Shankara]

You just constantly bash the CCP and everything they've done

They certainly aren't worthy of praise. As much as I disagree with the way the Soviet Union positioned itself at many times, I take Khruschev's 1960 position that Mao Zedong was a ultra-nationalist and deviationist.

Maoism in theory doesn't bother me, but Mao Zedong's implementation was outright Chinese supremacy, and this position was just further proven by the Sino-Indian war of 1962. China claimed Ladakh as "Chinese territory", a boundless claim that rested on ideas of empire.

[Amphictyonis]

I thought the point of socialism / communism was that we want people to be free from domination? If you try and forcibly convert people to atheism then you are guilty of the sort of action you condemn. If people want to believe in something irrational, that is none of your business.

Until, of course, that belief impacts others in a negative way. For instance, anti gay marriage stances, the misogyny found in more fundamentalist sects be it Baptist, Mormon or Islam- the hierarchy of the catholic church has caused all manner of violence over the years. I'd say organized religion is a problem. The mind frame it creates. Self righteous fundamentalist moral indignation is shown towards anything and everything they think is "unholy".

I understand the need for some people to fight off nihilism by believing in some god/afterlife but I don't understand...I mean, these people would have a vote in our society: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sthm3vH6ixY

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sthm3vH6ixY) How can you be so, well, stupid?

[Magón]

But aren't we trying to escape capitalism? Is saying "because capitalism brainwashed in their education system, we should do so as well" really a good idea?

No. we should provide both viewpoints of the matter, and let students decide. Teach them to think, not blindly obey and listen to what is taught them.

That's how I was brought up, and came to my final stance on religion. I had a very, very, very devout and religious grandmother who as a kid always tried telling me and my parents, to get me Baptized as Catholic, since that's what she was. My mother didn't really have a say, but my father was an Atheist, and instead of telling me my grandmother was insane or dumb, he just gave me some books to read and think over, while I made my own decision.

And it wasn't just like an over night thing either, I even went to church for a whole 3 months before coming to my final conclusion. Which I came to be an Atheist.

But I think this is the best way for young people to actually choose. I find it wrong of parents to baptize their children as babies, and bring them up like they do. But I also find it wrong of Atheists to do the same with their children. I say, when they're old enough to really get to understanding religion and what not, let them do it on their own time and for their own reasons, not your own selfish reasons.

[Obzervi]

Simply ban it, and punishment for those who continue to to embrace it. The reason being that religion is fundamentally anti-materialistic and supports a bourgeoisie agenda by encouraging people to accept their oppressed lot in life. Religion can be easily wiped out within one generation due to the fact that infants are not born with beliefs, they are instilled in them. If we remove the link to religious beliefs we've defeated it forever.

[Manifesto]

Simply ban it, and punishment for those who continue to to embrace it. The reason being that religion is fundamentally anti-materialistic and supports a bourgeoisie agenda by encouraging people to accept their oppressed lot in life. Religion can be easily wiped out within one generation due to the fact that infants are not born with beliefs, they are instilled in them. If we remove the link to religious beliefs we've defeated it forever.
Or we could do the thing that wouldn't turn billions off of communism.

[Raúl Duke]

Simple, religion should not be encouraged nor actively discouraged.

No funds/labor will ever be spent on new churces/religious things, a strict sense of secularism/seperation of religion in politics (i.e. religious arguments will be seen as faulty in any decision-making discussion), religions occupations will not be considered a valid occupation (no clergy), and no religious mass-media.

People can study and practice religion in their private time. No gulag, no jail, no active persecution (especially not of their person although I don't care if religion is still ridiculed in comedy TV), etc.

I imagine an extremely secular society that would seem to be an atheist society (at the surface) even if there was still a significant population of believers. It won't be much of an anti-theist society, although education might weaken religiosity. However, I wouldn't mind/care if anti-theist actions occured during the revolution (such as destruction of mega-churches, west-boro baptist church, and the most reactionary churches).

[Sir Comradical]

But aren't we trying to escape capitalism? Is saying "because capitalism brainwashed in their education system, we should do so as well" really a good idea?

No. we should provide both viewpoints of the matter, and let students decide. Teach them to think, not blindly obey and listen to what is taught them.

Yes, children should be taught about different world religions, but the school system should promote rationality. This doesn't necessarily mean teaching atheism, but rather emphasising the illogicality of taking religion literally.

[Obzervi]

Heed my words, make no mistake. Religion should be banned. Apologetics be damned, religion is the scourge of the earth. It has killed millions of people and only prevents the necessary unity of mankind. It is a divisive force which only serves the interests of the bourgeois. Anyone who still believes in an invisible male therapist in the sky needs to be institutionalized, and will be in a post-revolutionary society due to disturbing the peace and propagating reactionary ideas. Do not take these pronouncements lightly, be critical of religion and confront it wherever you may encounter it.

[Queercommie Girl]

They certainly aren't worthy of praise. As much as I disagree with the way the Soviet Union positioned itself at many times, I take Khruschev's 1960 position that Mao Zedong was a ultra-nationalist and deviationist.

Maoism in theory doesn't bother me, but Mao Zedong's implementation was outright Chinese supremacy, and this position was just further proven by the Sino-Indian war of 1962. China claimed Ladakh as "Chinese territory", a boundless claim that rested on ideas of empire.

Actually Ladakh was a part of the Manchu Qing dynasty, like all of Tibet. I'm not saying it is necessarily right to inherit old territorial claims of an old feudal state, but such a claim is objectively speaking certainly not "boundless".

Your political line is totally wrong if you'd rather support a worthless corrupt revisionist bureaucrat like Khruschev rather than people like Stalin and Mao. Deformation in both the political superstructure and the economic base only increased under Khruschev compared with under Stalin, not decreased. Despite the lack of direct worker's democracy, productivity at least improved massively during the Stalin era, but in the post-Stalin revisionist era, it began to stall. The revisionist bureaucrats are those who are responsible for restoring elements of private enterprise in the USSR and deviating from real socialism and Leninism. Bureaucratic capitalism began to appear in the USSR under people like Khruschev.

If anything, Russian nationalism only increased during the post-Stalin era compared with the Stalin era, like for instance sending in tanks to crush the workers' movements in Eastern Europe. Not all nations are "equal", invading another worker's state is much more serious than a worker's state invading a bourgeois or feudal state.

Calling Mao an "ultra-nationalist" is ridiculous since Mao explicitly criticised Han nationalism many times. If anything, contemporary Han nationalism in China only began to emerge under the reign of the revisionist bureaucrat Deng Xiaoping, not under Mao Zedong, just like Khruschev was much more Russian nationalist than Stalin was. Nationalism is a manifestation of capitalism, not socialism.

I'm not saying Stalin and Mao didn't make mistakes, but I'd rather support people like Stalin and Mao than those revisionist pro-capitalist scumbags in both Russia and China that came after them.

[Queercommie Girl]

But aren't we trying to escape capitalism? Is saying "because capitalism brainwashed in their education system, we should do so as well" really a good idea?

No. we should provide both viewpoints of the matter, and let students decide. Teach them to think, not blindly obey and listen to what is taught them.

We are trying to escape capitalism plus all the discriminations that exist in capitalist society, such as racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia.

I don't mind people practicing religions, but people should have no freedom to believe in certain interpretations of religions that are against LGBT people for example. Anti-LGBT religious interpretations should never be presented to pupils as if they are just a neutral viewpoint that is intrinsically of equal worth to pro-LGBT interpretations.

[Adi Shankara]

Actually Ladakh was a part of the Manchu Qing dynasty, like all of Tibet. I'm not saying it is necessarily right to inherit old territorial claims of an old feudal state, but such a claim is objectively speaking certainly not "boundless".

Your political line is totally wrong if you'd rather support a worthless corrupt revisionist bureaucrat like Khruschev rather than people like Stalin and Mao. Deformation in both the political superstructure and the economic base only increased under Khruschev compared with under Stalin, not decreased. Despite the lack of direct worker's democracy, productivity at least improved massively during the Stalin era, but in the post-Stalin revisionist era, it began to stall. The revisionist bureaucrats are those who are responsible for restoring elements of private enterprise in the USSR and deviating from real socialism and Leninism. Bureaucratic capitalism began to appear in the USSR under people like Khruschev.

If anything, Russian nationalism only increased during the post-Stalin era compared with the Stalin era, like for instance sending in tanks to crush the workers' movements in Eastern Europe. Not all nations are "equal", invading another worker's state is much more serious than a worker's state invading a bourgeois or feudal state.

Calling Mao an "ultra-nationalist" is ridiculous since Mao explicitly criticised Han nationalism many times. If anything, contemporary Han nationalism in China only began to emerge under the reign of the revisionist bureaucrat Deng Xiaoping, not under Mao Zedong, just like Khruschev was much more Russian nationalist than Stalin was. Nationalism is a manifestation of capitalism, not socialism.

I'm not saying Stalin and Mao didn't make mistakes, but I'd rather support people like Stalin and Mao than those revisionist pro-capitalist scumbags in both Russia and China that came after them.

If Mao wasn't an ultra-nationalist, explain the annexation and sinification of East Turkestan, which actually was a socialist state prior to Chinese colonization.

[Adi Shankara]

Actually Ladakh was a part of the Manchu Qing dynasty, like all of Tibet

Tibet has always been an independent nation. I'm not going to argue this point, because I don't expect any Chinese Nationalists to ever concede it.

[Queercommie Girl]

If Mao wasn't an ultra-nationalist, explain the annexation and sinification of East Turkestan, which actually was a socialist state prior to Chinese colonization.

If you are referring to the "Second East Turkestan Republic", yes that was "socialist" (though of course being influenced by Trotskyism I'd only call it a "deformed worker's state"), and its "revolutionary" actions against the bourgeois-feudal ethnic Han warlords were relatively and partially progressive.

However, there was no essential conflict between the SETR, which was heavily supported by the USSR under Stalin, and Mao's PRC. The SETR was certainly no more "socialist" than the PRC was in objective economic terms. Essentially it was a "peaceful hand-over" to the PRC and apart from changes in terminology, there was virtually no change in substance. This was long before the Sino-Soviet split and Stalin's USSR and Mao's PRC were generally speaking on very good terms politically.

Contemporary bourgeois pro-independence elements say things which most of the East Turkestan socialists at the time would never agree. The first governor of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region was one of the important political figures in the SETR.

It's totally ridiculous for you to consider the SETR and Stalin's USSR socialist or partially socialist, but not Mao's PRC. It's simply not a consistent position at all. So when USSR forces enter Central Asia, it was "socialist liberation", but when PRC forces enter Central Asia, it was "colonisation". Yeah right. You just seem to have a Russian nationalist attitude and is biased towards the Chinese in almost every way.

There was essentially no difference between Stalin's and Mao's ethnic policies at all. To be pro-Stalin/Mao or anti-Stalin/Mao is one thing, but it's totally fucked up to imagine that the two were somehow "radically different". The only ones who would have such views would be Russian nationalists and nazbols who support Stalin not because he was a socialist, but because he was a great "Russian leader". You get such people in China too regarding Mao which I equally oppose.

[Queercommie Girl]

Tibet has always been an independent nation. I'm not going to argue this point, because I don't expect any Chinese Nationalists to ever concede it.

That is something virtually no Western history textbook on China would ever agree with. And I would certainly not call Western history books written in the US "pro-Chinese", let alone "Chinese nationalist".

If you look at any map of the Manchu Qing dynasty, you would see that Tibet is always included. How about try to find a Qing map that doesn't include Tibet?

However, as a socialist, I don't even care about this, because socialist geo-politics is not justified by feudal national borders anyway. The liberation of Tibet is justified not with old Qing maps, but by the progressive consequences it brought about in the class sense. I'm not an absolute pacifist and I don't necessarily oppose socialist invasions of bourgeois and feudal states. I believe that national rights are not unconditional and class rights overrule national rights in many cases.

Only liberal bourgeois consider national rights to be unconditional, but I'm not a liberal bourgeois. My primary interest is in class rights, not national rights.

[Adi Shankara]

That is something virtually no Western history textbook on China would ever agree with. And I would certainly not call Western history books written in the US "pro-Chinese", let alone "Chinese nationalist".

If you look at any map of the Manchu Qing dynasty, you would see that Tibet is always included. How about try to find a Qing map that doesn't include Tibet?

However, as a socialist, I don't even care about this, because socialist geo-politics is not justified by feudal national borders anyway. The liberation of Tibet is justified not with old Qing maps, but by the progressive consequences it brought about in the class sense. I'm not an absolute pacifist and I don't necessarily oppose socialist invasions of bourgeois and feudal states. I believe that national rights are not unconditional and class rights overrule national rights in many cases.

Only liberal bourgeois consider national rights to be unconditional, but I'm not a liberal bourgeois. My primary interest is in class rights, not national rights.

And many maps included almost all of West Africa as part of England and France :rolleyes: Does that mean that was so?

[Queercommie Girl]

And many maps included almost all of West Africa as part of England and France :rolleyes: Does that mean that was so?

Actually objectively yes, at the time at least. Much of Africa was literally a part of the British Empire.

Just because you are anti-imperialist doesn't mean you can just reject the facts. To say that Tibet was a part of the Manchu Qing or that South Africa was a part of the British Empire isn't saying that these were right in an ethical sense, it's just stating a fact of history.

Also remember, from a Marxist perspective Britain was a bourgeois empire while Qing was a feudal empire. Qing China itself suffered under British colonialism (e.g. the Opium War and the hand-over of Hong Kong), so British and Chinese imperialism were not on the same level. The former is objectively more reactionary and oppressive than the latter. Even though the Manchus conquered Tibet, like they conquered the rest of China (the Manchus were not Han Chinese remember), objectively Tibet still had much more autonomous rights than Africa did under European domination.

However, I'm not defending the Manchu conquest of Tibet. I don't really care about that. Modern PRC is not a continuation of the old feudal Qing empire. Modern geo-politics isn't justified by 200 years old maps, one way or another.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's how I was brought up, and came to my final stance on religion. I had a very, very, very devout and religious grandmother who as a kid always tried telling me and my parents, to get me Baptized as Catholic, since that's what she was. My mother didn't really have a say, but my father was an Atheist, and instead of telling me my grandmother was insane or dumb, he just gave me some books to read and think over, while I made my own decision.

And it wasn't just like an over night thing either, I even went to church for a whole 3 months before coming to my final conclusion. Which I came to be an Atheist.

But I think this is the best way for young people to actually choose. I find it wrong of parents to baptize their children as babies, and bring them up like they do. But I also find it wrong of Atheists to do the same with their children. I say, when they're old enough to really get to understanding religion and what not, let them do it on their own time and for their own reasons, not your own selfish reasons.

Do you think those who wish to believe in traditional religions should be allowed to hold say homophobic/transphobic viewpoints because such are an "intergral part" of their traditional religions?

I say no, even if the institutional but secularised structure of traditional religions is kept intact, it should be certainly gutted of its anti-LGBT content. This is not conditional by any means. If this offends traditional religious people, then tough.

[Queercommie Girl]

Simple, religion should not be encouraged nor actively discouraged.


What about discriminatory elements within religions, which objectively aren't essential to the religions themselves, should they not be opposed either?

Genuine socialism should have no tolerance for any kind of discrimination. People have religious freedom only up to the extent of not actually discriminating against anyone else on any basis.

[Magón]

Do you think those who wish to believe in traditional religions should be allowed to hold say homophobic/transphobic viewpoints because such are an "intergral part" of their traditional religions?

I say no, even if the institutional but secularised structure of traditional religions is kept intact, it should be certainly gutted of its anti-LGBT content. This is not conditional by any means. If this offends traditional religious people, then tough.

Well I don't think they should have those beliefs, seeing how having those beliefs in either an Anarchist or Communist Society, the majority of the population will oppose such discriminatory beliefs. But there will always be someone to come along and say otherwise against the Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

I think that since we're talking about post-revolutionary society, the limited group who upholds and believes these discriminatory beliefs, will themselves be looked down upon and the society they live in will not welcome them or do transactions with them.

It's like the thread, where someone was asking if in an Anarchist or Communist Society, someone wanted to be Capitalist again, could they? Well the answer there is yes, but they'd only get as far as claiming to be Capitalists, then actually putting Capitalism to work seeing how the society they're coming from just steam rolled and kicked the Capitalists asses out of power, and are now themselves in power over themselves. People can be whatever they want, but they're not going to get far by doing so. It's like in todays society, where if I wanted to be Anarchist to the full extent, I couldn't be because there are so many factors going against me to do it. Even if I tried making a Commune of 50 people, we'd fail in the society we live in. So would any Religious or Capitalist group. They couldn't thrive like they do now, because people will have realized none of that can control them, nor will they let themselves be controlled by these things.

If someone's against LGBT Rights, then it's probably more than likely a hate group of LGBT Supporters are going to go find the people/person and either eliminate them from society, or the discriminatory person will have their words fall on deaf ears.