Religion in a communist society

[Diello]

Many people seem to feel that, in a communist society, religious fervor would be greatly decreased, possibly to the point where all vestiges of religion vanished.

However, I've also heard a few people assert that, in a communist society, organized religion would actually be forbidden.

Can I get some input on this?

[ContrarianLemming]

I think people who claim religion will be forbidden are reactionary to an extant, or - more liekly - they haven't though it through and considered that - more likely then not - most of there family (and society) is going to be repressed by this.

A lot of good working class commies happen to be theists, we can't just say "sod off" and be done with it.

[Manic Impressive]

Capitalism won't be completely eradicated through a revolution it will take education to beat it, the same will be true with religion. Hopefully it will lose all significance although I'm sure some people will still believe in a sense of spirituality. I agree that an outright ban would be oppressive but religion in its current form is an oppressive system so should be stopped and measures to cripple it should be made i.e. the re-appropriation of the churches wealth and property. I think for any religion to exist in a stateless society it would have to radically adapt.

Some of the Christian communists or communists who are Christians that I've spoken to have some very misguided views on homosexuality.

[Vanguard1917]

Since religion has material foundations, it can't be defeated through bans. For the same reason, it also can't be defeated through only education/propaganda. As Marx very poetically pointed out, 'Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves round man as long as he does not revolve round himself.' As a result, 'The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions', and to create a reality in which humanity revolves round itself.

[jmpeer]

I think organized religion, and superstition in general, will continue to decay into nonexistence, banned, communist, or not. It only survives through a minority and a majority of a nominal status who have obtained their status through child indoctrination. The lot of them are just as religious as holidays are holy. It's a completely disingenuous and corruptive situation. But I think you can not honestly be a theist and a communist, you can only cherry pick from both.

[EvilRedGuy]

Just let religion wither away, jeez...

Religion, just like monarchy won't excist forever, enjoy it while you can. :(

[Magón]

I think that, at least with Anarchism, Religion has no place in a society like that. For one, religions, like it's already been noted, is oppressive and reactionary is many ways. For people to truly call themselves free, they have to be in the mindset that they are the one's who make up their minds, actions, etc. and not some invisible man in a robe with a great white beard who has a big ego trip. Anarchism is all about thinking for one's self, and religions are there to think for people, rather then letting the people think for themselves.

So in either an Anarchist or Communist Society, religion has no place where people are truly free.

[Peace on Earth]

Any revolution that has in its goal the banning of religion is far too reactionary for anyone here to support. Religion will be defeated through education, not force.

[Invincible Summer]

If we're avoiding the "science vs. religion" debate for now, then I would think that organized religion would probably die out on its own, but personal beliefs would still remain. The rest is up to the individual (i.e. whether or not they will follow various beliefs or choose to let them go).

I think any religious people who are cool enough to support the revolution/revolutionary society will most likely not have reactionary bullshit spewing from their mouths anyway, so I don't see why there would be a need to ensure their secularization.

[Ocean Seal]

State atheism is a mistake, if atheism truly is the more logical philosophy then it must be openly debated against us theists. Denial of religious belief is surely reactionary as it asserts that the "enlightened" are supreme over those who do believe by some measure and that those below should be forced to accept the thought of the enlightened.

[Amphictyonis]

Advanced communist societies would be non hierarchical. The church is one of the oldest and strongest hierarchy's known to man hence all of the treacherous activity born from that institution. Religion, if facilitated on a personal level without a church/leader/master/groupthink I would imagine would be fine. It's when your beliefs start effecting others is when it becomes a problem. Would the Westbro Baptist Church exist in a communist society? No.


fxv2vLWoO3o


Would you want your fellow workers under direct democracy attending this church (below)?

MjPIdaG5mKQ


I can understand the desire to want to believe in some higher force or meaning in life. Some deep and meaningful reason we exist but the pious archaic dogma of the past needs to go. It's stunting man kinds progression.

[cenv]

In the context of modern capitalism, religion is partly an attempt to find coherence and meaning in a world where life is lived through a fragmented collection of commodities that exist separate from humanity and separate from each other. Creating communism implies reorganizing life around the human subject. From an existential perspective, you could say that proletarian revolution consists of people seizing the power to create their own meaning in life. So we're not going to ban religion; we're going to transcend it and dissolve the structures that necessitate shared illusion.

[Ocean Seal]

Advanced communist societies would be non hierarchical. The church is one of the oldest and strongest hierarchy's known to man hence all of the treacherous activity born from that institution. Religion, if facilitated on a personal level without a church/leader/master/groupthink I would imagine would be fine. It's when your beliefs start effecting others is when it becomes a problem.

It would be hierarchical to ban religious people from assembling and praying. Reactionary churches are merely a symptom of a reactionary economic model. As the world progresses away from capital the people will look for progress. If the church does not give it to them, then it will collapse, however, if people assemble now with their more revolutionary views they will form more revolutionary churches. There is nothing wrong with people expressing their beliefs on issues that really aren't central to materialism and have no reason to be banned.

[Amphictyonis]

It would be hierarchical to ban religious people from assembling and praying. Reactionary churches are merely a symptom of a reactionary economic model. As the world progresses away from capital the people will look for progress. If the church does not give it to them, then it will collapse, however, if people assemble now with their more revolutionary views they will form more revolutionary churches. There is nothing wrong with people expressing their beliefs on issues that really aren't central to materialism and have no reason to be banned.

In the absence of a state religious dogma, as in, the fundamentalist teachings of the old testament and koran, would be detrimental to a free society. It's not hierarchical to abolish hierarchical institutions. Organized religion is a huge problem. It's one step below capitalism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I believe Soviet control over areas such as Azerbaidzhan & Afghanistan help show a small picture of what would initially happen to religion while under Communism, let alone Socialism. According to The Handbook of Major Soviet Nationalities, Islam simply withered away & also witnessed the gradual erosion of traditional Islamic life:


"Azerbaidzhan presents two cultural worlds: one urban in which Islam and its traditional customs, art, and literature have largely died; the other rural and isolated in which women still wear black shawls and Moslem values have more than historical significance. But, in sum, Islam lingers on more as a source of tradition than as an actively worshipped religion. While such Moslem customs persist as circumcision, religious proverbs, naming of children with Allah's attributes, and early marriage for women, the five pillars of faith are no longer observed. Zakat [alms] is forbidden, public prayer is quite rare, Ramadan (month of fasting) conflicts with work schedules and is effectively discouraged, and Hajj is limited to a handful of token pilgrims allowed to visit Mecca."

According to an old New York Times article, it reported:


"Western and other foreign specialists here are skeptical of a theory widely circulated in the West that the Soviet Military intervention in Afghanistan was motivated largely by fear that a spread of Islamic fundamentalism through Central Asia might infect the adjacent Soviet Moslem peoples.

"Diplomats and journalists who have traveled recently in the Moslem republics of Soviet Central Asia and the Caucasus report that religion has been eroded in the lives of the 40 million or so people of Moslem tradition. ...

"The Soviet authorities seem to feel complete confidence now in the loyalty of their Moslem peoples, ... Moscow's confidence appears to be illustrated by reports from Afghanistan that many of the soldiers sent for the intervention are Tadzhiks or others of Moslem tradition.

"The atmosphere is even more secular in Central Asia than in Moslem areas of the Caucasus. The mosques, minarets and mausoleums of ancient glory are state museums now, tourist attractions. The small and humble mosques open for worship are sparsely attended by the elderly. Young people are seldom seen there."


(New York Times, 13 January 1980, p. A:14, and 12 April 1980, pp. 1, 6.)

[Franz Fanonipants]

as a religious person AND a Marxist I'm kinda your demographic here. honestly, in a lot of ways I do believe that Marx's analysis of religion, as a symptom of the ills of capitalism, is pretty spot-on and that in the event of a revolution religion itself will probably shift forms to conform to a post-revolutionary society. whether that means religion will "die out" (lol) or more likely, shift in terms of its expression, I'm not sure.

[Sir Comradical]

One thing is for sure, socialists shouldn't be building anymore mosques, temples, churches or synagogues because that would be a waste of resources. Secondly the imams, gurus, pastors and other such holy men should be obliged to work. Preaching religion is not work the same way that masturbation is not love.

[AristeraGR]

Believe in what you want to believe but for your own good you should start saying you are an Atheist that pretty much it

[Queercommie Girl]

Religion should not be banned politically in a democratic socialist society. The freedom of belief is a fundamental human right.

However, religions should be discouraged, and reactionary elements in religions should be opposed directly. Marxists also do not really defend religions from militant atheist attacks, even though we don't attack religions directly as militant atheists do. Marxism is neither anti-theist nor anti-anti-theist.

[soyonstout]

Would the Westbro Baptist Church exist in a communist society? No.

fxv2vLWoO3o

Would you want your fellow workers under direct democracy attending this church (below)?

MjPIdaG5mKQ

most. fucked up. videos. ever.

Benny Hinn also has pretty weird connections to crime, has personal jets and bodyguards, etc., but still asks for money--which I was going to call unchristian but its the same as the pope so it's pretty damn christian.

Having said that, there's a really good article that I think I maybe read from a Bordigist website that said something like "religion cannot be negatively suppressed; it can only be positively superceded" which is a good approach. Marx (in the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) says that religion is both an expression of suffering and a protest against suffering through mystified means--i don't think religion will go away until people actually consciously control their lives and their world (which won't happen overnight after the revolution), as people learn to run their own lives any kind of interventionist God makes less and less sense and fulfills less and less of a need, and religion becomes mostly cultural attachment to particular myths, and I think once people stop being totally powerless in society, the control these myths exert over them and the guilt that convinces the next generation to continue the traditions will have less of a material base and it will be much easier for people to discard religion altogether. But no one should force anyone to.

[Yawn]

Not even a revolution can simply just knock off the religious views of the people. Some people will have been raised strictly in their religion and will not turn it down. Yet, as Nin mentioned for people to truly be free they must have the mindset of seeing things from a wider point of view.

[Rainsborough]

Organised religions have always existed as a kind of 'blessing' on capitalism. "Put up with what you've got, no matter how bad, you'll be rewarded in heaven", so as long as capitalism exists, religion will exist and vice versa. They have a symbiotic need for each other, lose one and the other will soon follow.
However, don't expect either to simply 'wither' away.

[Rafiq]

The Bolsheviks up to 1928 didn't have a big problem with Religion.

As I recall, among Muslims and Non Orthodox Christians the Soviets were very popular, and Lenin was too.

[PolPotist]

The Religious should be purged or "removed" from society.

removed can also mean reeducation, but religion should not be perpetuated.

[PolPotist]

The religious should be purged.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Religious should be purged or "removed" from society.

removed can also mean reeducation, but religion should not be perpetuated.

Actually Marxists should not explicitly support militant atheism. Religions that are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory should not be politically banned. The freedom of belief is a fundamental human right.

But we should also not shield religions from any kind of rational criticism, and religious thought should not be encouraged in a socialist society.

[Trigonometry]

It seems many people equate religion with church powers which although often come hand in hand are not the same.

I believe should a communist society arrive, the idea of purging 'religions' would have greater repercussions than one would think and a true communist society should be an ultimate form of democracy rather than hammer and sickles and che guevara shirts, and in democracy rights of personal religious beliefs should be included. Communism should be a form of governance rather than a complete life style, if there is great emphasis on purging of religion for 'enlightenment' all it would lead to is personality cults which become institutionalised religion itself, as it further promotes an idea of communist/ socialist identity which inevitably leads to idea of conformity. Look at the cultural revolution, that is the result of a communist identity, the cultural revolution can be alikened to the Spanish inquisition, the red guards are the inquisitors, and communism is the religion. It simply resulted in Mao being the prophet and Maoist ideas becoming the state religion, and the politburo became the clergy.
If a communist government is to be a truely democratic government it should not be inclined to certain set of views and creating an identity, which would cause it to transform in a Red bannered theocracy.

[Invincible Summer]

It seems many people equate religion with church powers which although often come hand in hand are not the same.

I believe should a communist society arrive, the idea of purging 'religions' would have greater repercussions than one would think and a true communist society should be an ultimate form of democracy rather than hammer and sickles and che guevara shirts, and in democracy rights of personal religious beliefs should be included. Communism should be a form of governance rather than a complete life style, if there is great emphasis on purging of religion for 'enlightenment' all it would lead to is personality cults which become institutionalised religion itself, as it further promotes an idea of communist/ socialist identity which inevitably leads to idea of conformity. Look at the cultural revolution, that is the result of a communist identity, the cultural revolution can be alikened to the Spanish inquisition, the red guards are the inquisitors, and communism is the religion. It simply resulted in Mao being the prophet and Maoist ideas becoming the state religion, and the politburo became the clergy.
If a communist government is to be a truely democratic government it should not be inclined to certain set of views and creating an identity, which would cause it to transform in a Red bannered theocracy.


I do agree with you to an extent that communism isn't a lifestyle. However, I do think that the theoretical basis for the Cultural revolution is important; no doubt there were excesses but the concept of basically encouraging criticism of "the olds" is important in forging a new society.

While I'm not sure I'd go as far as actually physically destroying remnants of the old culture et al, a concerted effort (i.e. a dedicated campaign) at deciding what is wrong and what could be improved about old society seems like a fairly structured way to go ahead with plans, rather than playing it by ear.

[Trigonometry]

I do agree with you to an extent that communism isn't a lifestyle. However, I do think that the theoretical basis for the Cultural revolution is important; no doubt there were excesses but the concept of basically encouraging criticism of "the olds" is important in forging a new society.

While I'm not sure I'd go as far as actually physically destroying remnants of the old culture et al, a concerted effort (i.e. a dedicated campaign) at deciding what is wrong and what could be improved about old society seems like a fairly structured way to go ahead with plans, rather than playing it by ear.

The cultural revolution was far more than just criticism of conservative ideas, which would in itself be an expression democracy, but rather it was a state sponsored move of setting an orthodoxy in socialist ideas (Maoist), that is it was not that some groups of society opposing a certain set of ideas but rather the state itself banning all ideas but Maoism. Is this not alike religious inquisitions? Isn't a state's absolute support of an orthodox view on a matter (in this case just about all matters from family values to education) and active denouncing other ones exactly why theocracies and clergical institutions are flawed? Both tell you how/what to think one on grounds of the word of God/ other in the name of being revolutionary and progressive.
It would be no democracy, and quite frankly I would prefer neoliberal democracy over such a state, as at least in a neoliberal democracy I could say I am a proud catholic without the state denouncing and punishing me for such a view. As a truely democratic state, no persons should be penalised for whatever personal views they hold however ridiculous, and thus in a truely democratic socialist society should a person say they are a fascist, the state itself should not actively penalise against them.
In essence socialism should be a strictly intellectual view of governance that the vast majority choose to support and recognise like how it is almost universally accepted that slavery should be abolished (whether this has happened or not is beside the point) rather than a state sponsored set of dogmatic doctrines to which all standards are set

[Diello]

Actually Marxists should not explicitly support militant atheism.

What is the phrase "militant atheist" here used to mean?

I've only heard the phrase used to pejoratively describe atheists who criticize religion in harsh terms. This usage obviously doesn't make sense-- in my opinion, "militant atheist" would be more accurately applied to atheists who want to forcibly eradicate religion-- but it's the only way I've heard it used so far.

[Queercommie Girl]

What is the phrase "militant atheist" here used to mean?

I've only heard the phrase used to pejoratively describe atheists who criticize religion in harsh terms. This usage obviously doesn't make sense-- in my opinion, "militant atheist" would be more accurately applied to atheists who want to forcibly eradicate religion-- but it's the only way I've heard it used so far.

My point is that while religions certainly should not be shielded from rational criticism, any form of religion that is not reactionary or discriminatory should also not be politically banned.

Genuine Marxists should support, in principle, maximising democratic rights for everyone, including the freedom of belief, as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory.

[Diello]

My point is that while religions certainly should not be shielded from rational criticism, any form of religion that is not reactionary or discriminatory should also not be politically banned.

Genuine Marxists should support, in principle, maximising democratic rights for everyone, including the freedom of belief, as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory.

Am I to take from that that "militant atheist" is generally used in this environment to describe an atheist who favors the forcible eradication of all religion?

[Magón]

Am I to take from that that "militant atheist" is generally used in this environment to describe an atheist who favors the forcible of all religion?

Look up info on Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and there's two other guys I can't remember off hand who are considered Militant Atheists. (They're all well known for one reason or another.)

Militant Atheism doesn't exactly mean to deal with a religion with force, such as violence, but being heavily critical, etc. of religions can also be Militant Atheism.

[Diello]

Look up info on Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and there's two other guys I can't remember off hand who are considered Militant Atheists. (They're all well known for one reason or another.)

Militant Atheism doesn't exactly mean to deal with a religion with force, such as violence, but being heavily critical, etc. of religions can also be Militant Atheism.

Why shouldn't Marxists support that sort of criticism of religion, then?

[Magón]

Why shouldn't Marxists support that sort of criticism of religion, then?

I dunno, ask a Marxist that question, not an Anarchist. I'm just here for the Sectarianism and Doughnuts. :)

[Queercommie Girl]

Am I to take from that that "militant atheist" is generally used in this environment to describe an atheist who favors the forcible eradication of all religion?

There isn't a standard definition for this term. Personally I don't oppose rational criticism of religion on an intellectual level, e.g. Dawkins-style, but I oppose explicit political banning of non-reactionary and non-discriminatory forms of religious practice.

So that's what I mean by the term, others have different definitions. But obviously people like Dawkins might indeed support the political banning of many religions even if they don't propose it themselves explicitly, since they see religions as some kind of extremely reactionary thing.

[Amphictyonis]

most. fucked up. videos. ever.

Benny Hinn also has pretty weird connections to crime, has personal jets and bodyguards, etc., but still asks for money--which I was going to call unchristian but its the same as the pope so it's pretty damn christian.

Having said that, there's a really good article that I think I maybe read from a Bordigist website that said something like "religion cannot be negatively suppressed; it can only be positively superceded" which is a good approach. Marx (in the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) says that religion is both an expression of suffering and a protest against suffering through mystified means--i don't think religion will go away until people actually consciously control their lives and their world (which won't happen overnight after the revolution), as people learn to run their own lives any kind of interventionist God makes less and less sense and fulfills less and less of a need, and religion becomes mostly cultural attachment to particular myths, and I think once people stop being totally powerless in society, the control these myths exert over them and the guilt that convinces the next generation to continue the traditions will have less of a material base and it will be much easier for people to discard religion altogether. But no one should force anyone to.

Well, there's still the problem of angst in the face of total annihilation after death. If I could believe in some eternal life in heaven after death I would. Trust me. It would make things so much easier to deal with or at the least comforting. Personally I'm afraid of death and in turn am somewhat afraid of life. This is the problem Kierkegaard had and it's why he turned to religion. This is why most people do. Nietzsche, on the other hand, went the opposite direction, he ended up going mad ;)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why shouldn't Marxists support that sort of criticism of religion, then?

Because they all lack a dimension of material analysis. For ex: blaming religion for conflicts based on resources and the will of capital. Most militant atheists of the Dawkins/Hitchens stripe probably aren't Marxists for the simple fact that they've basically discarded any sort of Base-Superstructure analysis, instead focusing on a sort of strange idealism and Dawkins going on about "poisonous memes" and other bullshit.

Most of them are also basically fronts for racist, anti-Islamic scaretalk.

[Cijji Dubz]

Not sure what I have to say is pertinent here, but I'm a Neopagan and I'm not certain that I or other folks at all like me are contained by what folks here are referring to as religion.

I don't think that my religion contains the repressive and anti-intellectual elements attributed to mainstream Judaeo-Christo-Islamism etc. but it seems that my religion would be just as banned as those oppressors would be by those who oppose religion.

As I say, not sure how pertinent my comments are, but I submit them for whatever they're worth.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't think that my religion contains the repressive and anti-intellectual elements attributed to mainstream Judaeo-Christo-Islamism etc. but it seems that my religion would be just as banned as those oppressors would be by those who oppose religion.

snrkk

E: Neopaganism - Way more intellectual than your summae theologica/rabbinical scholars/imams.

[Robocommie]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/AverroesColor.jpg

All up in that anti-intellectualism

[Queercommie Girl]

Because they all lack a dimension of material analysis. For ex: blaming religion for conflicts based on resources and the will of capital. Most militant atheists of the Dawkins/Hitchens stripe probably aren't Marxists for the simple fact that they've basically discarded any sort of Base-Superstructure analysis, instead focusing on a sort of strange idealism and Dawkins going on about "poisonous memes" and other bullshit.

Most of them are also basically fronts for racist, anti-Islamic scaretalk.

Intellectually Marxists don't agree with Dawkins-style analysis of religion of course, but as I said before, as a Marxist I'm certainly not going to spend time actually defending religion from people like Dawkins, including religions like Islam.

Marxism is neither anti-theism nor anti-anti-theism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

http://www.stthomasaquinasdetroit.org/images/st-thomas-aq.gif

the book he's holding?

The Secret

[Franz Fanonipants]

Intellectually Marxists don't agree with Dawkins-style analysis of religion of course, but as I said before, as a Marxist I'm certainly not going to spend time actually defending religion from people like Dawkins, including religions like Islam.

Marxism is neither anti-theism nor anti-anti-theism.

Yeah, of course not. I wouldn't expect my comrades to defend my religious beliefs. I mean...I'd enjoy not being executed summarily for em, but I'm not expecting back up from you guys.

The problem is that most of Dawkin/Hitchen's criticisms do come from a severely non-Marxist place in terms of not taking a material criticism of Religion. i.e. Religion is constructed in response to material conditions. Rather, they see religion itself as causative in creating material conditions.

[Cijji Dubz]

snrkk

Not sure what this means.


E: Neopaganism - Way more intellectual than your summae theologica/rabbinical scholars/imams.

To say that my own religion tends to lack an anti-intellectual streak is not the same thing as to claim that it is intellectual. Merely that its adherents are not steered away from their own intellectual inquiries and directions.

The thoroughly intellectual traditions of the Catholicism and Talmudic studies were not very welcoming of independant intellectual inquiry and directions.

[Cijji Dubz]

Seems to me the Catholic Church was pretty damn anti-intellectual if your intellectual pursuits didn't lead you to the same conclusions as those of the Doctors of the Church. Same with the intellectual traditions of the other major religions. Orthodox Judaism, despite its incredible legal/logical Talmudic traditions is pretty damn anti-intellectual if you wished to study secular intellectual topics.

[Nikolay]

I don't think I'd ever give up my religion in a Socialist/Communist society. Just my opinion. IIRC, everyone has the right to practise any religion they want.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not sure what this means.

To say that my own religion tends to lack an anti-intellectual streak is not the same thing as to claim that it is intellectual. Merely that its adherents are not steered away from their own intellectual inquiries and directions.

The thoroughly intellectual traditions of the Catholicism and Talmudic studies were not very welcoming of independant intellectual inquiry and directions.

All religions are superstitious and irrational, but I'm more sympathetic to religions like Neo-Paganism relative to the great established religions of class society.