Islamic Socialism

[mosfeld]

What exactly is "Islamic Socialism" and how does it differ from the other non-communist "socialist" trends such as African Socialism, Bolivarian Socialism, Arab Socialism, etc..? Is it something like, say, Libya?

EDIT: Also, according to Hezbollah's wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah), they're "Islamic Socialist". Anyone have any sources for this..?

[Queercommie Girl]

In a nutshell, it is like a "welfare socialist" and "majority public owned" economic base with an Islamist political and ideological superstructure on top. They might have more progressive views on women's rights and homosexuality etc, but that's not a necessary pre-requisite.

[The Vegan Marxist]

In a nutshell, it is like a "welfare socialist" and "majority public owned" economic base with an Islamist political and ideological superstructure on top. They might have more progressive views on women's rights and homosexuality etc, but that's not a necessary pre-requisite.

Not true. I know a few Islamic socialists, & they mainly point out how they'd like to see Socialism through what had taken place in Afghanistan, where Islamic customs was relinquished, but their religious beliefs were respected to the individual. I point out what happened there through this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1891660&postcount=15

[Devrim]

Islamic socialism is a contradiction in terms.

Devrim

[Soseloshvili]

Essentially Islamic Socialism is what Libya practices, yes. It's basically everything Socialists preach, with an Islamic religious justification for everything. It's still Internationalist and everything, it's just... well, religious. They're not to fond of gay rights and women's rights because that contradicts the Quran.

You should read this: http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb.htm

It's written by Muammar al-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya. It basically explains the Libyan Socialist point of view. Really you'll find it's not to different from normal Socialism.

[Amphictyonis]

Check - Reforms and oppression, 1978-79 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan#Reforms_and_opp ression.2C_1978-79

[Queercommie Girl]

Essentially Islamic Socialism is what Libya practices, yes. It's basically everything Socialists preach, with an Islamic religious justification for everything. It's still Internationalist and everything, it's just... well, religious. They're not to fond of gay rights and women's rights because that contradicts the Quran.


Well, that's certainly easy to say when you are not LGBT or a woman yourself, isn't it? Sure, that isn't a big deal at all?

Which is why I reject the mechanical class-reductionist view that "everything must be *subservient* to basic class struggle". When you neglect the basic socio-economic rights of any section of the working class, you are not being really pro-working class as a whole.

[Soseloshvili]

Well, that's certainly easy to say when you are not LGBT or a woman yourself, isn't it? Sure, that isn't a big deal at all?

Which is why I reject the mechanical class-reductionist view that "everything must be *subservient* to basic class struggle". When you neglect the basic socio-economic rights of any section of the working class, you are not being really pro-working class as a whole.

Well, as a matter of fact I am an LGBT. Must be easy for you to assume things you have no idea about, eh? Though no, I am not a woman. I am a Gay man.

I'm just stating what's occurring in Libya. I do actually support Libya, it has all the wonderful advantages of a Socialist system. Amazing education, health care and such. However I do disagree with the state-endorsed homophobia. And women have some rights there compared to other Arab countries, yes, but less rights than in other Socialist countries like Cuba.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm just stating what's occurring in Libya. I do actually support Libya, it has all the wonderful advantages of a Socialist system. Amazing education, health care and such. However I do disagree with the state-endorsed homophobia.

Why don't you go to live there yourself then? Hiding away your sexuality in the fear of being discovered must really be quite wonderful, huh?

I'm not a "single-issue activist" by any means, I do co-operate with political forces that are not explicitly pro-LGBT, like the Maoist MCPC, but then they are not explicitly homophobic either (they just don't have any official position on this issue), and I only work with them tactically.

I will never explicitly support any socialist organisation that is explicitly homophobic or transphobic, because I do take LGBT politics seriously, though tactical co-operation may be possible on a limited number of areas (I'm a pragmatist not an ideological purist), unless I actually try to change their homophobic or transphobic views explicitly myself.

[Soseloshvili]

Why don't you go to live there yourself then? Hiding away your sexuality in the fear of being discovered must really be quite wonderful, huh?

I'm not a "single-issue activist" by any means, I do co-operate with political forces that are not explicitly pro-LGBT, like the Maoist MCPC, but then they are not explicitly homophobic either (they just don't have any official position on this issue), and I only work with them tactically.

I will never explicitly support any socialist organisation that is explicitly homophobic or transphobic, because I do take LGBT politics seriously, though tactical co-operation may be possible on a limited number of areas (I'm a pragmatist not an ideological purist), unless I actually try to change their homophobic or transphobic views explicitly myself.

I know several gay men in Libya. They tell me they live relatively free, and that there actually is a gay scene in the capital city of Tripoli. Basically the state doesn't harass them but doesn't protect them and expects them not to be to flamboyant. That's pretty progressive for an Islamic society.

I'm willing to support them because I agree with Libya on every issue except that, and hell, there's room for improvement everywhere. Libya will become more progressive one day, it still stands as one of the only Arab countries to come out and say they're no opposed to Jewish people.

So yes, I would never throw my whole-hearted support behind Libya, I'd never do that for any group or government, even Cuba. I do however agree with most of what Libya does, and therefore stand by it. Islamic Socialism isn't really all to different than regular Socialism, see the lengthy post above by some comrade on Communist Afghanistan.

[Queercommie Girl]

I know several gay men in Libya. They tell me they live relatively free, and that there actually is a gay scene in the capital city of Tripoli. Basically the state doesn't harass them but doesn't protect them and expects them not to be to flamboyant. That's pretty progressive for an Islamic society.


Well, it's true that in the West the amount of discrimination against LGBT people in the Islamic World is often exaggerated. For instance, Islamic Iran actually has a better policy on transgenderism than most of the US itself, where police still sometimes beat up LGBT people at random on the streets.

So I'm not an Islamophobe in this sense. The only reason I brought this case up here is because you actually called Libya a socialist country, which is a different matter. Because personally I believe in rooting out discrimination against LGBT people within the socialist camp. Capitalist states, whether Western or Islamic, I kind of expect them to be homophobic and transphobic, but with socialists I expect a higher standard.



I'm willing to support them because I agree with Libya on every issue except that, and hell, there's room for improvement everywhere. Libya will become more progressive one day, it still stands as one of the only Arab countries to come out and say they're no opposed to Jewish people.

So yes, I would never throw my whole-hearted support behind Libya, I'd never do that for any group or government, even Cuba. I do however agree with most of what Libya does, and therefore stand by it. Islamic Socialism isn't really all to different than regular Socialism, see the lengthy post above by some comrade on Communist Afghanistan.


I would not support Libya really, perhaps only partially in a limited sense as a "highly deformed worker's state", this is not just due to queer rights. Being significantly influenced by Trotskyism, I'd say that without direct worker's democracy, the state is not really socialist in the full sense. (Direct worker's democracy is related to LGBT rights as where there is more grassroots democracy, there also tends to be more queer rights) Also while I disagree with militant anti-theism in the bourgeois sense, I believe that fundamentally Marxism is a materialistic, atheist and humanist philosophy that is incompatible with religions. I agree with Marx's view that religion really is a product of both low-level productivity development and class society, and would gradually fade away as the whole world becomes socialist. It is impossible for me to accept a non-materialist world-view philosophically.

[Rafiq]

Essentially Islamic Socialism is what Libya practices, yes. It's basically everything Socialists preach, with an Islamic religious justification for everything. It's still Internationalist and everything, it's just... well, religious. They're not to fond of gay rights and women's rights because that contradicts the Quran.

You should read this: http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb.htm

It's written by Muammar al-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya. It basically explains the Libyan Socialist point of view. Really you'll find it's not to different from normal Socialism.

Yeah, no.

[Rafiq]

Islamic Socialism is a Pan Islamist Socialist Ideal.

It doesn't really use Islamism, but it is Islamic Nationalist.

I am not an Islamic Socialist, I am just a Muslim Marxist but I am fully supportive of them.

[Crimson Commissar]

Islamic Socialism is a Pan Islamist Socialist Ideal.

It doesn't really use Islamism, but it is Islamic Nationalist.

I am not an Islamic Socialist, I am just a Muslim Marxist but I am fully supportive of them.
So you support Islamic Nationalism? Yeah, that really shows how much of a socialist you are.

[DaComm]

Islamic socialism is a contradiction in terms.

Devrim

This. They are incompatible terms, where the latter exists through the elimination of the former. It's like someone being a Homosexual Republican, if not rare, impossible.

[Devrim]

Essentially Islamic Socialism is what Libya practices, yes.

Except there is nothing at all socialist about it.


It's basically everything Socialists preach, with an Islamic religious justification for everything.

Socialism is the movement towards the suppression of the law of value, wage labour and money. Sharia is an idea based upon the rule of money. Look at how much of it actually relates to business transaction and property inheritance.

A society that bases itself on the idea of alms is in no way socialist. Any society where alms are necessary is, by, necessity, one of gross economic inequality.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It's like someone being a Homosexual Republican, if not rare, impossible.

I would image that there are a lot of homosexual republicans:


Since 1977, LCR (http://online.logcabin.org/) [Log Cabin Republicans] has expanded across the United States and has 47 chapters and 39 organizing committee in all 50 states, the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia), and Puerto Rico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico).[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Republican#cite_note-25) It claims to have thousands of members but does not release membership figures. It has a staff of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.), holds an annual convention, and raises funds that it donates to Republican officeholders and candidates whom it considers sympathetic to gay and lesbian rights issues. The archives of the Log Cabin Republicans are held within the Jean-Nickolaus Tretter Collection in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Nickolaus_Tretter_Collection_in_Gay,_Lesbian,_Bise xual_and_Transgender_Studies).

Devrim

[Soseloshvili]

Well, it's true that in the West the amount of discrimination against LGBT people in the Islamic World is often exaggerated. For instance, Islamic Iran actually has a better policy on transgenderism than most of the US itself, where police still sometimes beat up LGBT people at random on the streets.

I agree. However there is just about as much oppression of LGBT people in most of Arabia as in the U.S.A., the only difference being that in much of Arabia it's written law. In the U.S.A. transphobia and homophobia are more... oral law, if you will.


So I'm not an Islamophobe in this sense. The only reason I brought this case up here is because you actually called Libya a socialist country, which is a different matter. Because personally I believe in rooting out discrimination against LGBT people within the socialist camp. Capitalist states, whether Western or Islamic, I kind of expect them to be homophobic and transphobic, but with socialists I expect a higher standard.

Well, Libya is pretty much Socialist. I mean everything about it is socialized. It is a dictatorship, modeled a lot after the USSR's "Soviet Democracy". The lower levels of government are generally democratic, but the higher up you go the less democracy we see. But they do have socialized health care, education and the workers rights there are amazing compared to the rest of Africa and Arabia.

I agree with you there, Libya has some improvements to make. I'd love to see Libya a free place for all peoples, of all sexualities. Maybe we'll have to wait until after Qaddafi passes on, but still.


I would not support Libya really, perhaps only partially in a limited sense as a "highly deformed worker's state", this is not just due to queer rights. Being significantly influenced by Trotskyism, I'd say that without direct worker's democracy, the state is not really socialist in the full sense. (Direct worker's democracy is related to LGBT rights as where there is more grassroots democracy, there also tends to be more queer rights) Also while I disagree with militant anti-theism in the bourgeois sense, I believe that fundamentally Marxism is a materialistic, atheist and humanist philosophy that is incompatible with religions. I agree with Marx's view that religion really is a product of both low-level productivity development and class society, and would gradually fade away as the whole world becomes socialist. It is impossible for me to accept a non-materialist world-view philosophically.

Well it's not really in the trotskyite sense a deformed worker's state. It never really changed... if anything it's just become more progressive. It's not really deformed per say, it's just theocratic.

Don't support them then. You go support whatever little corner of this earth strikes your fancy.




Except there is nothing at all socialist about it.

Explain. There is everything Socialist about Libya, it's very name translate as People's Republic (Jamahiriya)


Socialism is the movement towards the suppression of the law of value, wage labour and money. Sharia is an idea based upon the rule of money. Look at how much of it actually relates to business transaction and property inheritance.

A society that bases itself on the idea of alms is in no way socialist. Any society where alms are necessary is, by, necessity, one of gross economic inequality.

Libya isn't governed by Sharia. It wasn't an Islamic revolution that Libya went through, but a Socialist one. Sure, Libya may have an Islamic influence to its laws. A heavy one. But it's not Sharia.

Whether it's religious or not, it's still Socialist. In every way but materialism Libya is Socialist. It's got a level class, and even the clergy doesn't have much power. Seriously, explain how it's otherwise.

[bricolage]

Explain. There is everything Socialist about Libya, it's very name translate as People's Republic (Jamahiriya)
So does that of Algeria and Bangladesh.
So does that of China, North Korea and Laos.
So did that of countless other capitalist states.

[Soseloshvili]

So does that of Algeria and Bangladesh.
So does that of China, North Korea and Laos.
So did that of countless other capitalist states.

Touché. Well, there are plenty of other legitimate things that define Libya as Socialist such as:


Socialized Health Care
Socialized Education
Garaunteed Worker's Rights
There is no Libyan bourgeoisie
The Libyan clergy have little power

The list goes on. If you needed clarification, there it is.

[ed miliband]

Touché. Well, there are plenty of other legitimate things that define Libya as Socialist such as:


Socialized Health Care
Socialized Education
Garaunteed Worker's Rights
There is no Libyan bourgeoisie
The Libyan clergy have little power

The list goes on. If you needed clarification, there it is.

I know AK got a little repetitive occasionally, but it's moments like this that make me wish he wasn't banned and could repeat his immortal sentence about workers control.

(Miss you, dude.)

But yeah, nothing that you have mentioned makes Libya socialist. And I can almost guarantee there is a bourgeoisie and worker's rights aren't even slightly enshrined.

[Soseloshvili]

I know AK got a little repetitive occasionally, but it's moments like this that make me wish he wasn't banned and could repeat his immortal sentence about workers control.

(Miss you, dude.)

But yeah, nothing that you have mentioned makes Libya socialist. And I can almost guarantee there is a bourgeoisie and worker's rights aren't even slightly enshrined.

Actually there is no privatization in Libya, everything is managed by the state, and worker's organizations (they're not quite unions so I refrain from calling them that) are included in the government at all levels, even in the national government.

[Devrim]

Actually there is no privatization in Libya, everything is managed by the state, and worker's organizations (they're not quite unions so I refrain from calling them that) are included in the government at all levels, even in the national government.

What do you think they trade on the Libyan Stock Exchange (http://www.lsm.ly/Arabic/Pages/default.aspx)?

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

Touché. Well, there are plenty of other legitimate things that define Libya as Socialist such as:


Socialized Health Care
Socialized Education
Garaunteed Worker's Rights
There is no Libyan bourgeoisie
The Libyan clergy have little power

The list goes on. If you needed clarification, there it is.

Doesn't matter, if there is no direct worker's democracy, it's not a genuine socialist state, only a deformed worker's state at best.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well it's not really in the trotskyite sense a deformed worker's state. It never really changed... if anything it's just become more progressive. It's not really deformed per say, it's just theocratic.

Don't support them then. You go support whatever little corner of this earth strikes your fancy.


Theocracy is not compatible with real Marxism. If nothing else it is still deformed in this sense. I'm not a militant atheist in practice, but only due to strategic concerns. I don't hide my ultimate aim which is to eradicate every single religion on the surface of this earth, only that I plan to do this in an entryist and gradual manner, rather than imposing it from above. As Marx said, without changing the actual conditions of class society into a classless one, religions will forever remain no matter how much you attack them.

Why would I support a state just because it has got good public welfare? A state with good public welfare doesn't imply it's really socialist. There are very good public welfare in the Social Democratic states of the European Union as well, and the EU has a more progressive position on LGBT rights.

It's deformed precisely because there is no real direct worker's democracy. Perhaps it's getting better, perhaps. But it's still a long way from an undeformed worker's democracy as things stand now. In principle I don't rule out a deformed worker's state "un-deforming" itself, but as things stand now, Libya obviously still has a long way to go.

Explain how a state like Libya is fundamentally and qualitatively different from a theocratic bourgeois state like Iran? Or do you label Iran as a "socialist state" too?

It is a mistake to fully support any state that is not a genuine worker's democracy. At most these states only deserve partial support. You should listen to Trotsky on this matter, for the good of the working class movement on the international scale.

Your ridiculous attempt at sarcasm against me suggesting I should support "a little corner of the earth that strikes my fancy" is total BS and reveals nothing except your political ignorance.

[Queercommie Girl]

My last words on this matter:

1) I fully defend the Muslim people against any kind of racism from the West, but in no-way what-so-ever do I defend the Islamic religion in anyway. If in practice I happen to defend Islam sometimes, it is only a by-product of defending Muslims from racism, and nothing more.

2) The Islamic World needs its own May 4th movement.

[Soseloshvili]

What do you think they trade on the Libyan Stock Exchange (http://www.lsm.ly/Arabic/Pages/default.aspx)?

Devrim

so-called "businesses" in Libya are managed by the Basic People's Congresses, the municipal governments. In a way I suppose it's privatization because they are run like any western-style business, though it's managed collectively by the people.

I have never seen anything other than the existence of that stock market to indicate Capitalism in Libya, and that thing is only 3 years old, there was no Libyan stock exchange before 2007. Maybe we're seeing Libya drift to Capitalism, I don't know. Qaddafi certainly has been more than willing to open his country up to the world lately.

[Rafiq]

So you support Islamic Nationalism? Yeah, that really shows how much of a socialist you are.

No I don't support Islamic Socialism, but I support Islamic Socialists

[Soseloshvili]

Theocracy is not compatible with real Marxism. If nothing else it is still deformed in this sense. I'm not a militant atheist in practice, but only due to strategic concerns. I don't hide my ultimate aim which is to eradicate every single religion on the surface of this earth, only that I plan to do this in an entryist and gradual manner, rather than imposing it from above. As Marx said, without changing the actual conditions of class society into a classless one, religions will forever remain no matter how much you attack them.

I don't have a problem with religion. Religion can be progressive, and so what, they don't accept materialism. It's not exactly one of the most important parts of our ideology, I've always been one to think economics are more important than philosophy. So long as they echo the majority of what we say, I don't see the problem.


Why would I support a state just because it has got good public welfare? A state with good public welfare doesn't imply it's really socialist. There are very good public welfare in the Social Democratic states of the European Union as well, and the EU has a more progressive position on LGBT rights.

Well, I suppose. However all of those countries have fervent privatization, which isn't present in Libya. Like I said, it isn't perfect, but it's better than the rest.


It's deformed precisely because there is no real direct worker's democracy. Perhaps it's getting better, perhaps. But it's still a long way from an undeformed worker's democracy as things stand now. In principle I don't rule out a deformed worker's state "un-deforming" itself, but as things stand now, Libya obviously still has a long way to go.

Well there is some direct worker's democracy, look up how the municipal level governments work in Libya. Every man and woman is immediately a member of the local government, and makes decisions together. It's somewhat direct worker's democracy, but not quite. However neither was the USSR.

Maybe it does have a lot of "un-deforming" to do, but if we're speaking in Trotskyite terms now remember that Trotsky never gave up on the USSR, he always believed it was still a worker's state. I think Libya's about there.


Explain how a state like Libya is fundamentally and qualitatively different from a theocratic bourgeois state like Iran? Or do you label Iran as a "socialist state" too?

Iran isn't really bourgeois, the aristocratic clergy is in power, so it's more an aristocratic state. And no, I don't support Iran.

I consider Libya fundamentally different because in Libya neither the clergy nor the bourgeoisie (if there even is one) has power, the power is (for the most part) of the masses.


It is a mistake to fully support any state that is not a genuine worker's democracy. At most these states only deserve partial support. You should listen to Trotsky on this matter, for the good of the working class movement on the international scale.

I do read Trotsky, actually. I may disagree with some of what he has to to say, but I still read him. That being said I also read Mao, Stalin, Luxemburg and Bakunin so, really, it's just intellectual development.


Your ridiculous attempt at sarcasm against me suggesting I should support "a little corner of the earth that strikes my fancy" is total BS and reveals nothing except your political ignorance.

I wasn't being sarcastic. That was honest, you go support whatever ideal and country you like. Libya to me has a lot of the qualities of a Socialist state, so I tend to defend it. That and that it openly declares itself revolutionary, and that many of Muammar Qaddafi's written works echo Socialism seems good enough to me.

[ZeroNowhere]

The real question here is: does Libya feature generalized commodity production?

[Soseloshvili]

The real question here is: does Libya feature generalized commodity production?

I can't say I can answer that with certainty. On one hand, Libya has recently developed a stock market exchange, which may indicate Capitalism.

However on the other hand, all businesses are managed by the local government, not individuals profiting for themselves. This certainly isn't the way it is here or to the best of my knowledge in any other Capitalist state. Here in my country so-called "chambers of commerce" act as self-governing organizations to business, I don't know how it is elsewhere.

I think right now it's probably somewhere in between. It's probably something like what the USSR looked like at the very beginning of Gorbachev's reforms. Right now it could go back to being a decent Socialist state, or devolve into Capitalism (with it's massive oil reserves and willingness to enter the modern world this may be possible)

[Red Commissar]

It's not anything. Like its other counterpart, "Arab Socialism", it ends up as a social democratic policy with Keynesian policies and nationalization thrown in as well as some humanitarian-tinged statements tying it back to Islam.

I don't think it upholds the role of the worker either. It seems to be class collaborationist in its approach.

Two examples would be Libya in some respects and the PMOI. But there are plenty of groups that are unapologetically "socialist" with out any sort of national or religious identifier attached to it that are more deserving of support.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't have a problem with religion. Religion can be progressive, and so what, they don't accept materialism. It's not exactly one of the most important parts of our ideology, I've always been one to think economics are more important than philosophy. So long as they echo the majority of what we say, I don't see the problem.


Actually materialism is an important part of the Marxist ideology, because ideologically disciplined Marxists should view the world through a scientific and rational lens, not a superstitious one. Those who are prone to be influenced by superstitions are also by their nature prone to be influenced by all sorts of wacky ideas. The idea of God, heaven and hell, etc, are simply a joke from a scientific perspective. They don't stand up to scrutiny at all.

Also, Engels very explicitly said that "the belief in God" is clearly a manifestation of class society. He said that without an absolutist ruler on earth, there can never be an absolutist ruler in heaven. Marx said something similar in the sense that people in class societies turn to religions due to the material conditions of class societies. What this implies is that religions should naturally fade away when class society is abolished. So if a supposedly "socialist society" is still "theocratic", it actually casts doubt on how genuinely socialist this society actually is.



Well there is some direct worker's democracy, look up how the municipal level governments work in Libya. Every man and woman is immediately a member of the local government, and makes decisions together. It's somewhat direct worker's democracy, but not quite. However neither was the USSR.

Maybe it does have a lot of "un-deforming" to do, but if we're speaking in Trotskyite terms now remember that Trotsky never gave up on the USSR, he always believed it was still a worker's state. I think Libya's about there.
Trotsky did support the USSR to some extent, but I doubt Libya is like another USSR.



Iran isn't really bourgeois, the aristocratic clergy is in power, so it's more an aristocratic state. And no, I don't support Iran.
You are mistaken. The political superstructure may be aristocratic, but the economic base is definitely bourgeois.

[Soseloshvili]

Actually materialism is an important part of the Marxist ideology, because ideologically disciplined Marxists should view the world through a scientific and rational lens, not a superstitious one. Those who are prone to be influenced by superstitions are also by their nature prone to be influenced by all sorts of wacky ideas. The idea of God, heaven and hell, etc, are simply a joke from a scientific perspective. They don't stand up to scrutiny at all.

Also, Engels very explicitly said that "the belief in God" is clearly a manifestation of class society. He said that without an absolutist ruler on earth, there can never be an absolutist ruler in heaven. Marx said something similar in the sense that people in class societies turn to religions due to the material conditions of class societies. What this implies is that religions should naturally fade away when class society is abolished. So if a supposedly "socialist society" is still "theocratic", it actually casts doubt on how genuinely socialist this society actually is.

There are those who claim that religion is anti-Capitalist in its roots. As to Islam, this is questionable. However I do believe that the notion of a higher power doesn't necessarily reflect a class society. In fact it may actually reflect a classless society, as in religious terms we are all equal in the eyes of god and must learn to cooperate (love thy neighbour).

Materialism is the philosophical base for Marxism, yes, but like I said philosophy is hardly as important as economics. It is possible to be non-materialist and reflect the same values as a materialist (I believe the best examples of this are the Christian Anarchist communes that existed during the Russian revolution), just as it is possible to be a materialist and reflect the same values as a non-materialist (I point to Stalin's USSR, with its cult of personality)


Trotsky did support the USSR to some extent, but I doubt Libya is like another USSR.

Why not? Trotsky called the USSR a degenerated worker's state, why doesn't Libya fit that description? I just haven't seen any evidence which points to that Libya has become entirely Capitalist or has reverted entirely to a class society. It may fit the definition of Socialism, or it may fit the definition of a degenerated worker's state.


You are mistaken. The political superstructure may be aristocratic, but the economic base is definitely bourgeois.

All political power rests in the hands of the Iranian clergy. Though it is a class collaborationist society, the clergy have taken means to suppress the political power of the bourgeoisie before. It's about equivalent to pre-revolutionary France, if you ask me.

[Dick Van Guard]

Why not? Trotsky called the USSR a degenerated worker's state, why doesn't Libya fit that description? I just haven't seen any evidence which points to that Libya has become entirely Capitalist or has reverted entirely to a class society. It may fit the definition of Socialism, or it may fit the definition of a degenerated worker's state.Are you saying there can be half class/half classless societies? The reason that Libya is not and never was a workers' state (never mind "socialist") is because the working class did/do not hold state power in their hands. I don't really know enough about Libya but my understanding is that the Gaddafi clique came to power through a coup d'état and not a mass struggle of the working class which they then usurped. I also don't subscribe to the view espoused by many on the radical left that nationalising the economy in the absence of proletarian state power equates to either "socialism" or a "deformed workers' state".

[Soseloshvili]

Are you saying there can be half class/half classless societies? The reason that Libya is not and never was a workers' state (never mind "socialist") is because the working class did/do not hold state power in their hands. I don't really know enough about Libya but my understanding is that the Gaddafi clique came to power through a coup d'état and not a mass struggle of the working class which they then usurped. I also don't subscribe to the view espoused by many on the radical left that nationalising the economy in the absence of proletarian state power equates to either "socialism" or a "deformed workers' state".

The Libyan workers welcomed the so-called "coup d'etat" of Muammar Qaddafi. It wasn't as if it was a military dictatorship, the Libyan revolution was won with only 9 bullets fired. From what I've read and been told by Libyans, the Libyan people loved and still love Qaddafi.

Workers do hold state power in their hands. The Libyan Jamahiriya (People's Republic) is made up of interconnected municipal councils known as "Basic People's Councils" in which are represented worker's organizations, who can make demands to the government and hold significant power in all levels of government.

Seriously, I don't get how that isn't a worker's state. It may not be perfect, for example Libya's theocratism, but it is fairly Socialist, if not completely. I have not seen enough evidence to point otherwise.

[Queercommie Girl]

There are those who claim that religion is anti-Capitalist in its roots.


That's ridiculous, considering how the capitalist class likes to use religions to keep down the working masses. The Catholic church had explicit links with the Nazis, for instance. Also, many religious organisations are themselves big exploiters of the people directly, like big landlords. Two examples are Lamaist Buddhism in pre-revolutionary Tibet and the Church of England. Both are big landlords in their own right.

Do I need to remind you about the role Christianity played in Western imperialism and colonialism in recent centuries?



As to Islam, this is questionable.
Hell, with Christianity it is even more questionable. (Apart from Liberation Theology) With Islam you can at least argue that as things stand now it does have somewhat more pro-poor policies, but clearly not due to anything "intrinsic" in Islamic religion but simply as a "by-product" of the fact that most Islamic nations today are neo-colonial countries oppressed by Western imperialism. So the class basis of Islam is significantly lower than that of Christianity.

But to call mainstream Christianity, especially Christian fundamentalism, "anti-capitalist" or "pro-poor", is a fucking joke. Christian fundamentalism in the US today is directly funded by Big Business and they don't even believe in giving out alms to the poor. Ever wonder why the highest racial caste in the US is called WASPS? (white anglo-saxon protestants)



However I do believe that the notion of a higher power doesn't necessarily reflect a class society. In fact it may actually reflect a classless society, as in religious terms we are all equal in the eyes of god and must learn to cooperate (love thy neighbour).
Then you are in disagreement with orthodox Marxism. Marx and Engels made it very clear that religion, especially the belief in God in an exclusive sense, is a product of class society. I suggest you read what Lenin wrote about the importance of Marxists being militant materialists and actively advocating a materialist world-view.

Marxism is not just about the emancipation of the working class from the capitalists, but also the self-emancipation of humanity as a whole. As the saying goes: Only through liberating all of humanity can the proletariat liberate itself. To believe that humanity must obey some kind of "higher power", whether real or imaginary, or just an abstract philosophical representation of the "raw forces of nature", is in contradiction with this emancipatory goal. Marxism believes not only in the abolishment of exploitation and oppression, but also advances in human power over nature through labour and improvements in industrial technique. We should not just not bow to the capitalists, we shouldn't bow down to "nature" or "god" either.

Also, a genuine Marxist must care about the liberation of every section of the working class and indeed humanity in general, including queer workers. You yourself said that it is due to religions like Islam that queers still do not have real equal rights in countries like Libya. So how can you dismiss the fact that queers don't yet have enough rights due to religious oppression? If one section of the working class is not free, then the working class as a whole is not free. It is imperative for a genuine socialist to push for greater rights for queer people in religious countries.

To say that religions are "anti-capitalist" but also "anti-queer" is contradictory, because by necessity a genuine "anti-capitalist" force must liberate every section of the working class. If it's "anti-queer" it cannot liberate queer workers and therefore it fails.



Materialism is the philosophical base for Marxism, yes, but like I said philosophy is hardly as important as economics. It is possible to be non-materialist and reflect the same values as a materialist (I believe the best examples of this are the Christian Anarchist communes that existed during the Russian revolution), just as it is possible to be a materialist and reflect the same values as a non-materialist (I point to Stalin's USSR, with its cult of personality)
But to mechanically divide "philosophy" from "economics" like how you've done here is itself not correct. These things are only divided so distinctly in the various academic departments of bourgeois universities, not in real life. There is a fundamental dialectical link between them. There is a dialectical interaction between the base (economics) and the superstructure (philosophy). Marxism believes that the existence of religion is due to both low level productivity development (so there lacks a real scientific view of the natural world) and class society (where religion is used as a tool of class oppression), so in a real scientifically and technologically advanced socialist society, religions would naturally fade away by implication. The converse of this is that if religions still persist strongly in a supposedly modern "socialist" society, then it actually casts doubt on how genuine this "socialism" is. The existence of religion is a superstructural manifestation of an underlying deformation in the economic base.

Politics aside, are you not a materialist yourself? Do you not recognise that the belief in God or the gods, in heaven and hell, in angels and demons, is fundamentally illogical and unscientific and has no rational basis? If this is the case, why would you still advocate and promote religions? What possible benefits can they offer humanity? Do you believe that the working class cannot unite and fight against their oppressors without some kind of belief in God? Quite the contrary, religion causes major divisions between workers of different cultures and backgrounds. I do not call for politically banning religions, but I think as scientific education etc progresses, religions would gradually fade away, and it is reactionary to oppose this natural process, such as defending religions from rational scientific criticism.



All political power rests in the hands of the Iranian clergy. Though it is a class collaborationist society, the clergy have taken means to suppress the political power of the bourgeoisie before. It's about equivalent to pre-revolutionary France, if you ask me.You are missing the point. There is no reason in principle why capitalism must necessarily be non-aristocratic. You could literally have a capitalist society ruled by a monarchy. The key is the economic base of production. At present the Iranian economy is not primarily based on landlordism, but on modern bourgeois industry. Therefore it is an aristocratic-theocratic bourgeois state, not a feudal state.

[gorillafuck]

There is no Libyan bourgeoisie


Huh?:confused:

[Soseloshvili]

That's ridiculous, considering how the capitalist class likes to use religions to keep down the working masses. The Catholic church had explicit links with the Nazis, for instance. Also, many religious organisations are themselves big exploiters of the people directly, like big landlords. Two examples are Lamaist Buddhism in pre-revolutionary Tibet and the Church of England. Both are big landlords in their own right.

Do I need to remind you about the role Christianity played in Western imperialism and colonialism in recent centuries?

I was not referring to religion in the way it exists today, but to the actual doctrines that govern it. There are those that believe Jesus Christ's teaching advocate and support statelessness and classlessness, as well as Mohammed, Moses, et cetera.

Like I said, I point to the Tolstoyist communes that existed in the countryside during the Russian revolution. They were Christian, but Christian Anarchist, basically doing everything we stand for it's just that their justification was different.


Hell, with Christianity it is even more questionable. (Apart from Liberation Theology) With Islam you can at least argue that as things stand now it does have somewhat more pro-poor policies, but clearly not due to anything "intrinsic" in Islamic religion but simply as a "by-product" of the fact that most Islamic nations today are neo-colonial countries oppressed by Western imperialism. So the class basis of Islam is significantly lower than that of Christianity.

But to call mainstream Christianity, especially Christian fundamentalism, "anti-capitalist" or "pro-poor", is a fucking joke. Christian fundamentalism in the US today is directly funded by Big Business and they don't even believe in giving out alms to the poor. Ever wonder why the highest racial caste in the US is called WASPS? (white anglo-saxon protestants)

Apart from Liberation Theology? You cannot just not include that, that is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. I do believe it is possible for religion to be anti-Capitalist. For proof of this, I'd like you to remember that at one point religion was a Feudal instrument, and that it revolutionized (through the protestant movements, which were deeply invested in the American and French revolutions) to become a bourgeois instrument. In the same way it can become a working class instrument, such as Liberation Theology.

Again, I'm not talking about the mainstream church. Religion can take on a revolutionary form, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that it is.


Then you are in disagreement with orthodox Marxism. Marx and Engels made it very clear that religion, especially the belief in God in an exclusive sense, is a product of class society. I suggest you read what Lenin wrote about the importance of Marxists being militant materialists and actively advocating a materialist world-view.

Marxism is not just about the emancipation of the working class from the capitalists, but also the self-emancipation of humanity as a whole. As the saying goes: Only through liberating all of humanity can the proletariat liberate itself. To believe that humanity must obey some kind of "higher power", whether real or imaginary, or just an abstract philosophical representation of the "raw forces of nature", is in contradiction with this emancipatory goal. Marxism believes not only in the abolishment of exploitation and oppression, but also advances in human power over nature through labour and improvements in industrial technique. We should not just not bow to the capitalists, we shouldn't bow down to "nature" or "god" either.

Religion isn't necessarily about bowing down to some higher power, it's just a non-Materialist justification for the world. And actually God isn't the product of a Capitalist society, the notion of a higher power existed in tribal communal societies such as the First Nations (the Mohawk people believe in a great spirit, for example).

And by the way, it doesn't bother me that I'm in disagreement with orthodox Marxism. Marx isn't some kind of god, it's possible he was wrong on some things (and he was wrong on some things, like his theories on the declining rate of profit)


Also, a genuine Marxist must care about the liberation of every section of the working class and indeed humanity in general, including queer workers. You yourself said that it is due to religions like Islam that queers still do not have real equal rights in countries like Libya. So how can you dismiss the fact that queers don't yet have enough rights due to religious oppression? If one section of the working class is not free, then the working class as a whole is not free. It is imperative for a genuine socialist to push for greater rights for queer people in religious countries.

To say that religions are "anti-capitalist" but also "anti-queer" is contradictory, because by necessity a genuine "anti-capitalist" force must liberate every section of the working class. If it's "anti-queer" it cannot liberate queer workers and therefore it fails.

But you see religion isn't necessarily anti-queer. Religion can be both revolutionary and reactionary, I've already established this. Many less-than-orthodox religions aren't really anti-queer, including several Judeo-Christian trains of thought.


But to mechanically divide "philosophy" from "economics" like how you've done here is itself not correct. These things are only divided so distinctly in the various academic departments of bourgeois universities, not in real life. There is a fundamental dialectical link between them. There is a dialectical interaction between the base (economics) and the superstructure (philosophy). Marxism believes that the existence of religion is due to both low level productivity development (so there lacks a real scientific view of the natural world) and class society (where religion is used as a tool of class oppression), so in a real scientifically and technologically advanced socialist society, religions would naturally fade away by implication. The converse of this is that if religions still persist strongly in a supposedly modern "socialist" society, then it actually casts doubt on how genuine this "socialism" is. The existence of religion is a superstructural manifestation of an underlying deformation in the economic base.

Politics aside, are you not a materialist yourself? Do you not recognise that the belief in God or the gods, in heaven and hell, in angels and demons, is fundamentally illogical and unscientific and has no rational basis? If this is the case, why would you still advocate and promote religions? What possible benefits can they offer humanity? Do you believe that the working class cannot unite and fight against their oppressors without some kind of belief in God? Quite the contrary, religion causes major divisions between workers of different cultures and backgrounds. I do not call for politically banning religions, but I think as scientific education etc progresses, religions would gradually fade away, and it is reactionary to oppose this natural process, such as defending religions from rational scientific criticism.

I am a materialist... sort of. Like everything with my politics, the notion of materialism is flexible to me. I believe it, but wouldn't think to question it. Gods and heavens as we know them may not have a rational basis, but that does not mean that the concept is irrational.

Religion can offer society the benefit of an easily graspable reason to cooperate with one another, religious justifications are easier to understand than Marxian ones.

No, I believe atheism and struggle are entirely compatible. I just happen to hold the belief that theism and struggle also can be compatible.


You are missing the point. There is no reason in principle why capitalism must necessarily be non-aristocratic. You could literally have a capitalist society ruled by a monarchy. The key is the economic base of production. At present the Iranian economy is not primarily based on landlordism, but on modern bourgeois industry. Therefore it is an aristocratic-theocratic bourgeois state, not a feudal state.

I suppose you're right, I'll cede the point.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

There is obviously no easy way for me to convince you to take a militant materialist perspective and be intrinsically anti-religion. Your attitude is actually a kind of confirmation for Marx's basic idea that bourgeois-style direct anti-theism rarely works effectively, because religion is ultimately intrinsically tied up with the socio-economic conditions of either primitive society or class society (both of which Marxism seeks to abolish - communism is not a return to primitive tribalism), and without changing these conditions fundamentally, religions will always exist.

Obviously, since you are not in any way anti-atheist, and you hold a relatively progressive view on religion anyway, there is no reason for me to attack you directly at all. Indeed, as a socialist I must defend your basic democratic rights to have the freedom of belief, even though I might disagree with you.

I will just finish this discussion/debate with this article on militant materialism by Lenin:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

[yobbos1]

This. They are incompatible terms, where the latter exists through the elimination of the former. It's like someone being a Homosexual Republican, if not rare, impossible.
There are more homosexual Republicans than you know.;)

[Queercommie Girl]

There are more homosexual Republicans than you know.;)

According to the statistics I've seen for the UK, the vast majority of queer people are politically on the left (though more reformists than revolutionaries) and only a small minority are actually on the right. I don't know how it's like in the US though.

[Soseloshvili]

I will just finish this discussion/debate with this article on militant materialism by Lenin:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm


I'll be sure to read it, though I may disagree.

[yobbos1]

According to the statistics I've seen for the UK, the vast majority of queer people are politically on the left (though more reformists than revolutionaries) and only a small minority are actually on the right. I don't know how it's like in the US though.
Since being an openly gay Republican is political suicide in the US the backroom (bedroom?) shenanigans are mostly hidden from public view. Tantalizing bits bubble to the surface often enough for the astute observer to make some reasonable assumptions about who does who in Washington.

[MellowViper]

Well, if they manage to establish true socialism, they won't need to rely on organized religion to quell their existential fears anymore. Eventually, I think they'd abandon it.