Stop scaring Muslims away from the Left movement.

[Rafiq]

I'm sick and tired of people here Scaring Muslims away from the Socialist Movement.


I have gotten so Many Muslims in the real world to be come Socialists, and if they saw half the stuff these people are posting, they would AUTOMATICALLY become Capitalists and say "screw these Anti-Muslim Commies".

Every time a Muslim is looking into/studying the left, some of you scare them away by Bashing them, there religion, and sometimes there ethnicity.

I think you need all the support you can get, and if a Muslim chooses to be a Leftists, you need to respect that.

Would you rather have a Muslim be a Right-Wing fundamentalist or a Left-Wing moderate?

Choose wisely.

[Widerstand]

I'd rather have everyone drop their religion, but you have a point. Leftists should especially refrain from using and adopting right-wing vocabulary like "Islamofascism".

[Queercommie Girl]

Genuine socialism is against Islamophobia and racism against Muslims. But Marxism is a materialistic, humanistic and rationalistic philosophy and ideology. This is our "religion", our faith. Our faith is in human self-emancipation, not God. We believe in the basic democratic rights of everyone having the freedom of belief, and we recognise that many Muslim countries in the world today are neo-colonial nations oppressed under Western imperialism. But we will never bow down to your God and we do not appreciate any religious people who try to use the leftist and socialist movement as a "platform" for their religious evangelism. In fact, I am a proponent for the political ban of explicit religious evangelism within socialist and communist parties.

Humanism and theism are fundamentally not compatible. Materialism and idealism are fundamentally not compatible. Science and superstition are fundamentally not compatible. We oppose all instances of Islamophobia and racism against Muslim peoples, but this doesn't mean we are Islamophilic.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'd rather have everyone drop their religion, but you have a point. Leftists should especially refrain from using and adopting right-wing vocabulary like "Islamofascism".

Objectively, Islam is far less "fascistic" than Christianity. I mean actually the orthodox Catholic Church had real explicit links with the German Nazis during WWII.

[Blackscare]

Every time a Muslim is looking into/studying the left, some of you scare them away by Bashing them, there religion, and sometimes there ethnicity.

Show me where a user with a post count higher than 50 has said this.

[gorillafuck]

I have gotten so Many Muslims in the real world to be come Socialists, and if they saw half the stuff these people are posting, they would AUTOMATICALLY become Capitalists and say "screw these Anti-Muslim Commies".

Every time a Muslim is looking into/studying the left, some of you scare them away by Bashing them, there religion, and sometimes there ethnicity.
I've never seen anyone on here bashing Muslims for their ethnicity.

But yeah, the militant atheism of the left is totally moronic and counterproductive. Why give a shit if someone is a moderate, non-hateful religious person?

[bailey_187]

Most people on this forum wont outright "bash" Islam, but no one is going to act like we dont think it is 100% flase.

If anything, atleast in Britain, the broad left (i.e. Anti-War, Anti-racism, etc) seems to have some sort of fetish for Islam. I mean, John Rees has a TV show on the Islam Channel lol.

[mikelepore]

These Muslims who are checking out the left, cited in the first post -- do they believe that the followers of other religions should be burned in hell, with their skin continuously restored so that the burning can go on forever (Quran 4:56) ? Do they believe that followers of Islam should ambush and kill the followers of other religions wherever they find them, and let them go only if they agree to convert to Islam (Quran 9:5) ? Who is the one who is initiating the "bashing" here?

[Queercommie Girl]

I've never seen anyone on here bashing Muslims for their ethnicity.

But yeah, the militant atheism of the left is totally moronic and counterproductive. Why give a shit if someone is a moderate, non-hateful religious person?

I believe in the democratic right of religious belief as long as it is not reactionary or discriminatory. But do you think Lenin is being "moronic" for explicitly promoting militant materialism?

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

On the Significance of Militant Materialism

Direct attacks on religion are often counterproductive, that is true, but only in the strategic sense. Orthodox Marxism does ultimately aim to end all superstitious religions, and establish a society that is based on materialism, rationalism and humanism, but this can only be achieved in a gradual, indirect and entryist manner. Without removing the socio-economic conditions on which religions are based, religions will never go away.

And I don't like religious evangelism either. If you are religious, fine, I support your right of belief, but don't try to make everyone else follow your religion, especially not within the structure of socialist and communist parties. I find it quite annoying.

[Rafiq]

Most people on this forum wont outright "bash" Islam, but no one is going to act like we dont think it is 100% flase.

If anything, atleast in Britain, the broad left (i.e. Anti-War, Anti-racism, etc) seems to have some sort of fetish for Islam. I mean, John Rees has a TV show on the Islam Channel lol.

I'm not asking you to think Islam is true or False.

I'm asking people to accept leftist muslims.

meaning not to discriminate against them, or scare them away, call them "REACTIONARY FOOLS" or whatever.

The main focus is Leftism, not ban all Muslims.

[Rafiq]

These Muslims who are checking out the left, cited in the first post -- do they believe that the followers of other religions should be burned in hell, with their skin continuously restored so that the burning can go on forever (Quran 4:56) ? Do they believe that followers of Islam should ambush and kill the followers of other religions wherever they find them, and let them go only if they agree to convert to Islam (Quran 9:5) ? Who is the one who is initiating the "bashing" here?

This is how you scare them away.

NO, THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

THERE ARE ONLY FIVE PILLERS OF ISLAM THAT MUSLIMS MUST FOLLOW.

ONE OF THEM, ISN'T AMBUSHING PEOPLE AND KILLING THEM.


BY THE WAY, IT IS FORBIDDEN IN ISLAM TO TELL PEOPLE "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL" OR BELIEVE OTHERS TO HELL.

[Rafiq]

I believe in the democratic right of religious belief as long as it is not reactionary or discriminatory. But do you think Lenin is being "moronic" for explicitly promoting militant materialism?


Speaking of LENIN.

He never ONCE took away ANY religious right to practice Islam.

"Do everything to demonstrate, and in the most emphatic manner, our sympathy for the Moslems, their autonomy, independence, etc."

-Vladimir Lenin

He said Religion should be held a private matter. But he never took away the right to practice religion.

[scarletghoul]

If youre gonna mobilise the masses you have to avoid insulting them and doing all the militant atheist bullshit. The OP is absolutely right, there are many muslims who would get naturally drawn to socialism in these times of capitalist racism and imperialism against our muslim brothers.

The Bolsheviks mobilised the Muslims of central Asia, the Indonesian communists especially done great work not just with the Muslim population but within the Muslim cultural institutions themselves.

The great Indonesian commie Tan Malaka gave a good practical summary (emphasis added)-

Pan-Islamism is a long story. First of all I will speak about our experiences in the East Indies where we have cooperated with the Islamists. We have in Java a very large organisation with many very poor peasants, the Sarekat Islam (Islamic League). Between 1912 and 1916 this organisation had one million members, perhaps as many as three or four million. It was a very large popular movement, which arose spontaneously and was very revolutionary. Until 1921 we collaborated with it. Our party, consisting of 13,000 members, went into this popular movement and carried out propaganda there. In 1921 we succeeded in getting Sarekat Islam to adopt our programme. The Islamic League too agitated in the villages for control of the factories and for the slogan: All power to the poor peasants, all power to the proletarians! So Sarekat Islam made the same propaganda as our Communist Party, only sometimes under another name.
But in 1921 a split occurred as a result of clumsy criticism of the leadership of Sarekat Islam. The government through its agents in Sarekat Islam exploited this split, and it also exploited the decision of the Second Congress of the Communist International: Struggle against Pan-Islamism! What did they say to the simple peasants? They said: See, the Communists not only want to split, they want to destroy your religion! That was too much for a simple Muslim peasant. The peasant thought to himself: I have lost everything in this world, must I lose my heaven as well? That won’t do! This was how the simple Muslims thought. The propagandists among the government agents exploited this very successfully. So we had a split. [Chairman: Your time is up.]
I have come from the East Indies, and travelled for forty days. [Applause.]
The Sarekat-Islamists believe in our propaganda and remain with us in their stomachs, to use a popular expression, but in their hearts they remain with the Sarekat Islam, with their heaven. For heaven is something we cannot give them. Therefore, they boycotted our meetings and we could not carry on propaganda any more.
Since the beginning of last year we have worked towards re-establishing the link with Sarekat Islam. At our congress in December last year we said that the Muslims in the Caucasus and other countries, who cooperate with the Soviets and struggle against international capitalism, understand their religion better, and we also said that, if they want to make propaganda for their religion, they can do so, though they should not do it in meetings but in the mosques.
We have been asked at public meetings: Are you Muslims – yes or no? Do you believe in God – yes or no? How did we answer this? Yes, I said, when I stand before God I am a Muslim, but when I stand before men I am not a Muslim [loud applause], because God said there are many devils among men! [Loud applause.] Thus we inflicted a defeat on their leaders with the Qur’an in our hands, and at our congress last year we compelled the leaders of the Sarekat Islam, through their own members, to cooperate with us.
When a general strike broke out in March last year, the Muslim workers needed us, as we have the railwaymen under our leadership. The Sarekat Islam leaders said: You want to cooperate with us, so you must help us, too. Of course we went to them, and said: Yes, your God is powerful, but he has said that on this earth the railwaymen are more powerful! [Loud applause.] The railwaymen are God’s executive committee in this world. [Laughter.]
But this does not settle the question, and if we have another split we may be sure that the government agents will be there again with their Pan-Islamism. So the question of Pan-Islamism is a very immediate one.
But now one must first understand what the word Pan-Islamism really means. Once, it had a historical significance and meant that Islam must conquer the whole world, sword in hand, and that this must take place under the leadership of the Caliph, and the Caliph must be of Arabian origin. About 400 years after the death of Mohammed the Muslims split into three great states and thus the Holy War lost its significance for the entire Muslim world. It thus lost the meaning that, in the name of God, the Caliph and the Muslim religion should conquer the whole world, because the Caliph of Spain said, I am the true Caliph, I must carry the banner, and the Caliph of Egypt said the same, and the Caliph of Baghdad said, I am the real Caliph, since I am from the Arabian tribe of Quraish.
So Pan-Islamism no longer has its original meaning, but now has in practice an entirely different meaning. Today, Pan-Islamism signifies the national liberation struggle, because for the Muslims Islam is everything: not only religion, but also the state, the economy, food, and everything else. And so Pan-Islamism now means the brotherhood of all Muslim peoples, and the liberation struggle not only of the Arab but also of the Indian, the Javanese and all the oppressed Muslim peoples. This brotherhood means the practical liberation struggle not only against Dutch but also against English, French and Italian capitalism, therefore against world capitalism as a whole. That is what Pan-Islamism now means in Indonesia among the oppressed colonial peoples, according to their secret propaganda – the liberation struggle against the different imperialist powers of the world.
This is a new task for us. Just as we want to support the national struggle, we also want to support the liberation struggle of the very combative, very active 250 million Muslims living under the imperialist powers. Therefore I ask once again: Should we support Pan-Islamism, in this sense?


Obviously things have changed since then, but the fact of muslims being oppressed by capitalism and imperialism has not. We need to work in muslim communities and establish revolutionary communism. This is completley possible.

[bailey_187]

I'm not asking you to think Islam is true or False.

I'm asking people to accept leftist muslims.

meaning not to discriminate against them, or scare them away, call them "REACTIONARY FOOLS" or whatever.

The main focus is Leftism, not ban all Muslims.


Your arguing against a fiction. Who calls Muslims "REACTIONARY FOOLS"?

We are Marxists, we are not going to hide the fact that we think Islam and all the teachings are not holy or sacred, but a fiction constructed to fill the voids left by capitalism and all that.

Accept Muslims in to what? Muslims can be communists, they can want to live in socialism and all that.

However, they wont ever be, while they are Muslims, Marxists. The two are mutualy exclusive.

Should Marxists waste time arguing against Islam? no. And if workers start forming councils etc ina revolutionary situation, should Muslims (and other religion) be excluded? Absolutly not.

I really dont get what point your trying to make. Who discriminates against Muslims?

[Queercommie Girl]

Speaking of LENIN.

He never ONCE took away ANY religious right to practice Islam.

"Do everything to demonstrate, and in the most emphatic manner, our sympathy for the Moslems, their autonomy, independence, etc."

-Vladimir Lenin

He said Religion should be held a private matter. But he never took away the right to practice religion.

That's what I meant by the democratic right of belief. Marxism does not endorse militant anti-theism in the political sense, such as literally banning religious practice. Genuine Marxism must support general proletarian democracy, which would of course include the freedom of belief. Even religious evangelism isn't completely banned, it's only banned within the structure of socialist/communist parties, because it is an objective obstruction to work. Otherwise only reactionary (e.g. pro-capitalist/pro-imperialist) and discriminatory versions of religions are banned explicitly.

However, this doesn't mean Lenin was religious-friendly, or that Marxism is not very clearly an explicitly materialistic philosophy, or that a socialist society is not a secular society underpinned by science and rationalism rather than religions.

[Rafiq]

Who discriminates against Muslims?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=31176

[Queercommie Girl]

If youre gonna mobilise the masses you have to avoid insulting them and doing all the militant atheist bullshit. The OP is absolutely right, there are many muslims who would get naturally drawn to socialism in these times of capitalist racism and imperialism against our muslim brothers.

The Bolsheviks mobilised the Muslims of central Asia, the Indonesian communists especially done great work not just with the Muslim population but within the Muslim cultural institutions themselves.

The great Indonesian commie Tan Malaka gave a good practical summary (emphasis added)-

Obviously things have changed since then, but the fact of muslims being oppressed by capitalism and imperialism has not. We need to work in muslim communities and establish revolutionary communism. This is completley possible.

What you said is true but it is opportunistic to abandon our philosophical commitment to materialism just to attract Muslims to socialism. That's what the British SWP did to some extent recently which is why many on the left criticised them. Socialists should never actually join a religion just to attract believers in that religion to socialism. Political alliance is obviously possible.

I stand by my basic political line:

Genuine Marxism supports the freedom of belief of all peoples, as long as these are not reactionary or discriminatory;

Marxism is fundamentally incompatible with religions and genuine Marxists should have a philosophical commitment to materialism;

We should be aware of some religious people's attempts to use socialism as a "platform" for their evangelism.

[Rafiq]

Genuine Marxism supports the freedom of belief of all peoples, as long as these are not reactionary or discriminatory;

Marxism is fundamentally incompatible with religions and genuine Marxists should have a philosophical commitment to materialism;

We should be aware of some religious people's attempts to use socialism as a "platform" for their evangelism.



That's only Orthodox Marxism.


Islamism is incompatable with Marxism, however, Muslims aren't incompatable of being Marxists

[Queercommie Girl]

That's only Orthodox Marxism.


Perhaps. But not all materialist Marxists are "orthodox Marxists". I'm not a dogmatic Marxist, but I do insist philosophically that Marxism is fundamentally underpinned by humanism, materialism and rationalism, not theism or religion.



Islamism is incompatable with Marxism,


That's right.



however, Muslims aren't incompatable of being Marxists


Depends on what you mean. As I said, I support the democratic right of freedom of belief, but philosophically speaking objectively Marxism is not compatible with theism.

In the concrete sense however, I will not call for a communist party to ban or remove someone just because he/she is a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist etc, but I believe religious evangelism should not be allowed within the party.

So politically one can have a "Muslim Marxist", philosophically one cannot.

Even with leftist Islamist political forces, I can ally with them as long as they are not reactionary or discriminatory, and I do not support political militant anti-theism, but that doesn't mean they are Marxists, or that I do not aim to build a completely secular socialist society.

[bailey_187]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=31176

If this guy is the problem ,why not just PM him your messge rather than accusing everyone else?

[Rafiq]

If this guy is the problem ,why not just PM him your messge rather than accusing everyone else?

Because there are a good number of people who agree with him

[gorillafuck]

Being a Muslim isn't incompatible with being a socialist radical, even if it is incompatible with Marxist philosophy. Class struggle and principles are so much more important than discussions on dialectical materialism

I'm going to admit something here. I don't really know what dialectical materialism is.

[Amphictyonis]

I can dig it- but, the fisrt modern holy war was against Marxists (funded by the USA). I don't dig that but some of the policies Afghan Marxists enacted were quite progressive. They banned the burka and promoted state atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_Revolution

[Widerstand]

I'm going to admit something here. I don't really know what dialectical materialism is.

The essence of Darwin's Evolutionary Theory in the form of variables and philosophical catchphrases. You should try it. It's not everything, it's not infallible, but it's handy and catchy.

Materialism isn't infallible either, though it certainly is preferable to metaphysical explanations.

However, fuck militant materialists.

[bailey_187]

Being a Muslim isn't incompatible with being a socialist radical, even if it is incompatible with Marxist philosophy. Class struggle and principles are so much more important than discussions on dialectical materialism
.

Well yeah. Muslims, if they are workers, will engage in class struggle, no matter what they philosophicaly.

Does the OP here see anyone complaining about the Turkish Tekel car workers on strike being (i assume, sorry if wrong) mainly Muslim? No one even comments on that when it is discussed.

[Queercommie Girl]

Being a Muslim isn't incompatible with being a socialist radical, even if it is incompatible with Marxist philosophy. Class struggle and principles are so much more important than discussions on dialectical materialism

I'm going to admit something here. I don't really know what dialectical materialism is.

Political and socio-economic struggles are obviously primary, but this doesn't mean philosophical and ideological struggles aren't important too, even though they are less so.

Consider this: Marxism believes base determines superstructure, but does Marxism ignore superstructure completely? Certainly not. Marx, Engels and Lenin all explicitly stressed the importance of philosophical and ideological struggles as well.

Also, historical materialism teaches that religions do not exist in the "abstract". The history of religions is completely inseparable from the history of human class society in general. Religions are the product of class society. When viewed in this manner one would understand Marx's prediction that in a genuine socialist society, "religions" in the traditional sense would gradually fade away naturally.

People should have the freedom of belief and religious party members should not be removed simply because they are religious as long as they do not engage in explicit evangelism. However, we should encourage rational and scientific criticism of religion and not defend religions from such criticisms. Socialist schools must also have a secular curriculum that is based on scientific, rationalist and humanist values, rather than consider materialism and religion as "equally valid".

[gorillafuck]

Does the OP here see anyone complaining about the Turkish Tekel car workers on strike being (i assume, sorry if wrong) mainly Muslim? No one even comments on that when it is discussed.
I saw a couple token comments about how Muslims don't engage in class struggle (which Devrim replied to with the example you gave).

But I was responding to whether Muslims can be Marxists. They can't be philosophically Marxist, but they can be revolutionary socialists is what I was saying.

[Obzervi]

Objectively, Islam is far less "fascistic" than Christianity. I mean actually the orthodox Catholic Church had real explicit links with the German Nazis during WWII.

Why the fuck does everyone feel the need to bring up Christianity whenever criticism of Islam is offered. No one here is defending Christianity.

[Quail]

I think what the OP is trying to point out is that although we should be criticising Islam as a religion (we should criticise every religion) and we should oppose theocracies, there are a lot of borderline/actual islamophobic posts on here, and people keep trying to prove that Islam is the "worst" religion. Muslims are getting a lot of bad press in the mainstream media, and it's sad to see leftists coming out with the same arguments the EDL use.

[Queercommie Girl]

The essence of Darwin's Evolutionary Theory in the form of variables and philosophical catchphrases. You should try it. It's not everything, it's not infallible, but it's handy and catchy.


Marxism is not the simple continuation of darwinism. But it's dialectical negation. (Not total negation)

The natural continuation of darwinism would be social darwinism, which is an imperialist philosophy that Marxism opposes.



Materialism isn't infallible either, though it certainly is preferable to metaphysical explanations.
The key here which you've missed is that the only "metaphysical" claim materialism makes is that it is never "infallible". So the only "metaphysical" element in materialism is its anti-metaphysics, because any claim to be "infallible" is always inevitably metaphysical and therefore reactionary. Nothing can ever be "infallible".



However, fuck militant materialists.
Philosophical militant materialism is largely correct, which Lenin endorses. It would be reactionary to be against that.

However, political militant materialism is not something Marxism would endorse. Having said this, I'd choose political militant materialism over religious fundamentalism any day.

Why should people believe in doctrines which clearly have no rational or scientific basis? What benefits could they possibly have? For genuine socialists, religions are largely totally irrelevant and totally useless. It's really not something to waste time on. For instance, the concept of "God" in orthodox theology is philosophically meaningless, without any kind of concrete substance.

[Amphictyonis]

I guess a sort of Islamic liberation theology could manifest but....this just doesn't make sense to me-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_League_of_Religious_Socialists

As we all know, history has shown us how the church manifests without a state in it's way. I'm not sure if we could regress back to the dark ages but it already happened once in human history.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why the fuck does everyone feel the need to bring up Christianity whenever criticism of Islam is offered. No one here is defending Christianity.

Because genuine socialists should realise that most Muslim countries today are neo-colonial nations oppressed by Western imperialism. And most reactionaries in the West who calls Islam "fascist" are usually those who would apologise for Christianity and its crimes in history, like those idiots in the EDL for instance. Therefore it is useful to point out the fact that actually relatively speaking, Christianity is more reactionary than Islam.

[Amphictyonis]

The essence of Darwin's Evolutionary Theory in the form of variables and philosophical catchphrases. You should try it. It's not everything, it's not infallible, but it's handy and catchy.

Materialism isn't infallible either, though it certainly is preferable to metaphysical explanations.

However, fuck militant materialists.

There's a difference between dialectical materialism and historical materialism :)

Historical materialism was one of Marx's greatest achievements. Before Marx people such as Ricardo and Adam Smith had formed rather pathetic theories surrounding, well, pretty much everything to do with the past and possible future of economic life in various societies. Adam Smith thought 'supernatural' forces accumulated wealth in the bourgeoisie's hands. I can go on and on but I think i've made enough posts referring to historical materialism over the last month.

[Widerstand]

Marxism is not the simple continuation of darwinism. But it's dialectical negation. (Not total negation)

The natural continuation of darwinism would be social darwinism, which is an imperialist philosophy that Marxism opposes.

Uh, what I meant was that the Evolutionary Theory follows a dialectical logic. Not that it was the base for dialectics.



The key here which you've missed is that the only "metaphysical" claim materialism makes is that it is never "infallible". So the only "metaphysical" element in materialism is its anti-metaphysics, because any claim to be "infallible" is always inevitably metaphysical and therefore reactionary. Nothing can ever be "infallible".

Philosophical militant materialism is largely correct, which Lenin endorses. It would be reactionary to be against that.

However, political militant materialism is not something Marxism would endorse. Having said this, I'd choose political militant materialism over religious fundamentalism any day.

Why should people believe in doctrines which clearly have no rational or scientific basis? What benefits could they possibly have? For genuine socialists, religions are largely totally irrelevant and totally useless. It's really not something to waste time on. For instance, the concept of "God" in orthodox theology is philosophically meaningless, without any kind of concrete substance.

I don't think religion deserves to be opposed the way it is opposed by people such as Richard Dawkins, though overall I agree it should be done away with.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think religion deserves to be opposed the way it is opposed by people such as Richard Dawkins, though overall I agree it should be done away with.


The problem with Dawkins is that he does not understand the socio-economic dimension of religion like Marx did, and also he spends too much energy in attacking religion, which is frankly not worth it.

But yes, I'd still much prefer Dawkins-style atheism over any kind of religious fundamentalism any day.

[Devrim]

Well yeah. Muslims, if they are workers, will engage in class struggle, no matter what they philosophicaly.

Does the OP here see anyone complaining about the Turkish Tekel car workers on strike being (i assume, sorry if wrong) mainly Muslim? No one even comments on that when it is discussed.
Just a quick factual correction; They were cigarette factory workers, but yes you are right they would be mostly Muslims (Turkey is 99.9% Muslim).

Personally I think that the obsession that some on here have with attacking Islam is due to them being carried along in the flotsam of what is, to me, clearly a right wing racist campaign. That does not mean that these people are racists themselves. I think that the job of revolutionaries is not to throw abuse, but patiently explain why they are wrong.

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

Uh, what I meant was that the Evolutionary Theory follows a dialectical logic. Not that it was the base for dialectics.


Actually philosophically darwinism was one of the basis of Marxist philosophy. Marx explicitly appreciated Darwin's scientific work.

But whereas the bourgeois philosophers used natural darwinism to develop their imperialist ideology of social darwinism to justify racism, sexism, exploitation of the poor etc, Marx's "class struggle" turned Darwin's "struggle for survival" on its head, which is why I said Marxism is like a "dialectical negation" of darwinism.

[bailey_187]

I saw a couple token comments about how Muslims don't engage in class struggle (which Devrim replied to with the example you gave).

But I was responding to whether Muslims can be Marxists. They can't be philosophically Marxist, but they can be revolutionary socialists is what I was saying.

yeah thats what i was agreeing with. You are no the OP.

[gorillafuck]

Actually philosophically darwinism was one of the basis of Marxist philosophy. Marx explicitly appreciated Darwin's scientific work.

But whereas the bourgeois philosophers used natural darwinism to develop their imperialist ideology of social darwinism to justify racism, sexism, exploitation of the poor etc, Marx's "class struggle" turned Darwin's "struggle for survival" on its head, which is why I said Marxism is like a "dialectical negation" of darwinism.
Did Darwin ever actually argue for social darwinism?

[Queercommie Girl]

Did Darwin ever actually argue for social darwinism?

Not explicitly. Darwinism does not necessarily have to "end up" as Social Darwinism. This is only the case within a bourgeois framework.

However, many bourgeois philosophers after Darwin did interpret Darwinism through a Social Darwinist lens. E.g. Spencer.

[Blackscare]

Philosophical militant materialism is largely correct, which Lenin endorses. It would be reactionary to be against that.

However, political militant materialism is not something Marxism would endorse.


You'd have to really stretch the meaning of reaction for this to make sense. To me reaction is a very concrete political term because it entails having a position that is, in it's net-effect, anti-communist.

You're talking about an abstract philosophical position (rejection of militant materialism) as something that is reactionary, which to me sounds a bit silly as it would constitute a personal view having no impact on one's political efficacy.

[The Red Next Door]

There was the red scum, but he got ban.:)

[Queercommie Girl]

You'd have to really stretch the meaning of reaction for this to make sense. To me reaction is a very concrete political term because it entails having a position that is, in it's net-effect, anti-communist.

You're talking about an abstract philosophical position (rejection of militant materialism) as something that is reactionary, which to me sounds a bit silly as it would constitute a personal view having no impact on one's political efficacy.


No philosophical position is just "abstract", and no viewpoint is just "personal", since superstructure always counteracts on the base. In fact, nothing can be analysed in a purely "abstract" sense. The idea that there exists some kind of completely "private" sphere cut off from the public is just petit-bourgeois nonsense. The "abstract absolute individual" does not exist. We are all the sum of our social relations.

Also, the person said "fuck militant materialism", so this implies that he is not just "not a militant materialist" in the neutral sense, but actively against militant materialism. If one is actually against militant materialism in the philosophical sense, it means one is against the scientific and rational criticism of religion. Marxism makes it quite clear that religion as we know it is a product of class society, and that it will gradually fade away in a genuine communist society. Therefore to actively obstruct this natural process would technically be somewhat anti-communist, since a genuine communist society is one in which religions as we know it would have already faded away, since the socio-economic basis for the emergence of religions would have already disappeared. Marxism does not hold that religion is just a "natural" phenomenon at all, but rather it is a social phenomenon that is intimately linked to the history of human class society.

Also, it is clear that Lenin advocated militant materialism (see his article "on the significance of militant materialism"), so to be literally anti-militant materialist is to go against Lenin, which to some extent is indeed anti-communist.

I must stress again that I find the notion some Marxists have that the only thing Marxists should do is to fight for communism in the political and socio-economic sense, but should completely ignore the philosophical dimension is clearly incorrect. This is not what Marx, Engels and Lenin teaches. Philosophical struggle is not as important as socio-economic struggle, but it is still important. This is because Marxist dialectics does not just focus on the base and totally ignore the cultural superstructure, nor does it see base and superstructure as two distinct things. Nothing exists in the "abstract" only. Any kind of religion, philosophy or ideology only exists because it is underpinned by some kind of socio-economic base, and therefore reflects underlying socio-economic relations.

It is totally silly and senseless to even think about religions in the abstract metaphysical sense, separate from their concrete socio-economic realities.

For those who think that intrinsically religion is just a "neutral force" in the abstract sense that can be both progressive and reactionary depending on the circumstances, they clearly don't understand Marxist historical materialism. Why is it that in human history on the whole religions have played much more reactionary than progressive roles? Why is it that religions are always prone to be used by the ruling class as a political tool of oppression? Any serious Marxist analysis of religion cannot exist in the abstract, cut off from these concrete historical considerations.

Marxism is not a game of abstract logic, but an empirical historical science. If empirical historical evidence shows that throughout human history, religions have largely played a reactionary role, siding with the relatively reactionary classes (such as the slavelord class during the time of the feudal revolution, or the feudal class during the time of the bourgeois revolution), then religions are largely reactionary. To think about religions "in the abstract" devoid of historical references is totally stupid and meaningless.

Is communism purely socio-economic? Does not genuine communism have a cultural and ideological dimension too? Of course to even consider these as actually distinct and separate is ridiculous to say the least. Base and superstructure always go together. Capitalist socio-economic productive relations necessarily produce a kind of culture that goes with it, communism is no different. Marx is quite clear that religion would fade away in a communist society, therefore the cultural superstructure that corresponds to communism cannot be anti-materialism, but materialism. In this sense then active anti-materialism is indeed anti-communist.

[Obzervi]

Not explicitly. Darwinism does not necessarily have to "end up" as Social Darwinism. This is only the case within a bourgeois framework.

However, many bourgeois philosophers after Darwin did interpret Darwinism through a Social Darwinist lens. E.g. Spencer.

Did you forget HITLER?

[Queercommie Girl]

You'd have to really stretch the meaning of reaction for this to make sense. To me reaction is a very concrete political term because it entails having a position that is, in it's net-effect, anti-communist.

You're talking about an abstract philosophical position (rejection of militant materialism) as something that is reactionary, which to me sounds a bit silly as it would constitute a personal view having no impact on one's political efficacy.


Your problem is that your definition of "reactionary" is too narrow. "Reactionary" things don't just include those that are explicitly and directly against the working class. As you yourself said, it is the net-effect that counts.

Historically, during the era of the slavery-feudalism transition in ancient China, there were no proletarian political forces, so in those days relative to that historical period it would be the slavelord class that is relatively reactionary, and the feudal landlord class that is relatively progressive. But obviously the slavelord class is not relatively reactionary because it is directly anti-proletarian or anti-communist, since proletarians and communism didn't exist in 5th century BCE China.

During the time of the French Revolution, it was the European feudal landlords that were relatively reactionary and the new capitalist class that was relatively progressive.

Would you consider homophobia to be reactionary? Technically it is not directly anti-working class, and indeed LGBT people only make up a small proportion of the working class population. But in terms of its net-effect it is indeed reactionary because homophobia inevitably causes divisions among the working class, which hinders the entire communist programme.

Some things are reactionary by implication, such as an anti-materialist philosophical position. Anyone who has ever read any Marx would realise that Marxist philosophy rests on a materialist foundation, not an idealist one. Indeed, Marx explicitly speaks against idealism. Also, Marx made it clear that in a genuine communist society there would be no need for the existence of religion, therefore to defend religion is to contradict Marx, the founder of the entire communist school of thought. While this may not be reactionary directly, it is certainly reactionary by implication.

[Queercommie Girl]

Did you forget HITLER?

No, but I just didn't feel the need to explicitly mention every reactionary bourgeois thinker that existed in history.

[Widerstand]

Did you forget HITLER?

The Nazis took bits and pieces of everything they could get their hands on. If they had known about Bakunin's Anti-Semite ramblings I'm sure Bakunin would be known as a Nazi philosopher nowadays. In fact, they probably knew about it, seeing as how they linked up Communism with a "Jewish Conspiracy" just like Bakunin did.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Nazis took bits and pieces of everything they could get their hands on. If they had known about Bakunin's Anti-Semite ramblings I'm sure Bakunin would be known as a Nazi philosopher nowadays. In fact, they probably knew about it, seeing as how they linked up Communism with a "Jewish Conspiracy" just like Bakunin did.

I don't think Bakunin and Hitler were anti-semitic from the same angle. Some forms of anti-semitism are still worse and more reactionary than others.

[WeAreReborn]

The Nazis took bits and pieces of everything they could get their hands on. If they had known about Bakunin's Anti-Semite ramblings I'm sure Bakunin would be known as a Nazi philosopher nowadays. In fact, they probably knew about it, seeing as how they linked up Communism with a "Jewish Conspiracy" just like Bakunin did.
Unlikely as his views directly conflict with Fascist ideals.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the whole damn issue of a leftists religion just needs to be dropped.
have some self discipline and be comradely to all your comrades.

i know quite a few practicing and non-practicing muslim communists.

This flag is the flag of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, you know, the revolutionary, secular, and progressive Afghanistan the US fought against, and the Soviet Union was asked to defend.

http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1980.gif

Are they wrong or reactionary for having green in the flag? no.Chavez and Morales are both catholic. are they bad? no.
mega-liberal moore is a catholic, but hes not so bad besides his politics.

religion hardly matters anymore. so stop equating the whole of islam with the ultra reactionaries in a few parts of the world.

you could do the same with ANY religion. even with any political tendency.

[WeAreReborn]

the whole damn issue of a leftists religion just needs to be dropped.
have some self discipline and be comradely to all your comrades.

i know quite a few practicing and non-practicing muslim communists.

This flag is the flag of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, you know, the revolutionary, secular, and progressive Afghanistan the US fought against, and the Soviet Union was asked to defend.

http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1980.gif

Are they wrong or reactionary for having green in the flag? no.Chavez and Morales are both catholic. are they bad? no.
mega-liberal moore is a catholic, but hes not so bad besides his politics.

religion hardly matters anymore. so stop equating the whole of islam with the ultra reactionaries in a few parts of the world.

you could do the same with ANY religion. even with any political tendency.
The problem with religion is it often creates hierarchy, at least organized. I myself as an Anarchist don't care if you are Christian, Jewish or Muslim as long as you don't push your religion on anyone and keep it to yourself unless asked about it I'm fine. Same with Atheism, but in a healthy society organized religion would be abolished and I'm sure most people would not believe in God. If life is good and education is actually valuable and not bullshit propaganda people would be much more willing to abandon their foolish ideals about some unknown higher being who is superior to humans and animals.

[Queercommie Girl]

the whole damn issue of a leftists religion just needs to be dropped.
have some self discipline and be comradely to all your comrades.

i know quite a few practicing and non-practicing muslim communists.

This flag is the flag of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, you know, the revolutionary, secular, and progressive Afghanistan the US fought against, and the Soviet Union was asked to defend.

http://flagspot.net/images/a/af-1980.gif

Are they wrong or reactionary for having green in the flag? no.Chavez and Morales are both catholic. are they bad? no.
mega-liberal moore is a catholic, but hes not so bad besides his politics.

religion hardly matters anymore. so stop equating the whole of islam with the ultra reactionaries in a few parts of the world.

you could do the same with ANY religion. even with any political tendency.

Soviet Afghanistan is obviously much better than Afghanistan under US imperialist domination right now but I don't accept that Soviet Afghanistan was an undeformed and completely healthy worker's state.

Political militant atheism is not something that is endorsed by Marxism, and people have the right of belief. But on the other hand, theism and religion is not just "equally valid" as materialism and atheism. Because you must admit that there is simply no empirical or rational evidence for the central claims of religions at all, and as Marxists we must strive to have a scientific and not a superstitious view of the world, as it is science and technique that ushered in the industrial age that made socialist revolution objectively possible in the first place, not religious superstition.

Is there any evidence for the existence of God? No. In fact the entire concept of "God" in orthodox theology is largely a meaningless one.

Is there any evidence for the existence of heaven and hell, and for angels and demons? Not really.

So is there any sense in promoting something that is clearly irrational? What good can such beliefs ever do to humanity?

This is not just an "abstract" issue. In a socialist society, what kind of educational curriculum should we have in schools? Should we teach children based on materialist, rationalist and humanist values or should we tell them that science and religion are "equally valid"? That to believe in something like "literal virgin birth" is as rationally sound as quantum mechanics? I really don't think so. And we have a duty to not let superstition negatively affect our children.

Chavez is good in many ways but he is not a very strong believer in religion at all. He focuses mainly on the ethical and cultural aspects of Catholicism rather than the literal superstitious aspects, and he does not evangelise his religion to atheist socialists.

Also, Chavez is still not on the same level as Lenin. And Lenin was a very firm materialist and explicitly advocated a militant materialist position. See his article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The OP is a condescending moron who thinks that all Muslims are like children - we mustn't hurt their precious widdle feewings or they'll throw a temper tantrum and not like us. Let's face facts; there will always be a proportion of religious believers (let alone Muslims) who will oppose or dislike us simply for who we are; people who want to actively make the world a better place, rather than leaving it to the will of Gods or to Fate. Hell, Jesus himself (or whoever wrote his script) said "the poor you will always have with you". You can find similar justifications of the current order in most religions because, surprise surprise, religion is an excellent tool for enforcing social and political conformity.

Not to mention of course the fundamental uselessness of attempting radical social change without testing and challenging people's closely-held beliefs, which mostly exist not as a consequence of a rational process of reasoning, but are there simply because that's what they were taught from childhood.

In order to break our chains for good, a good place to start is with the chains in our heads.

[Edelweiss]

The OP is nothing but a call for opportunism.

[timbaly]

The OP is nothing but a call for opportunism.


What do you mean by that?

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm going to admit something here. I don't really know what dialectical materialism is.


No it's not dialectical materialism that is central to Marxism, but historical materialism, which is a more developed form of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism without the historical dimension can still just become an abstract philosophical game. But as Marx said: in the past philosophers have only tried to understand the world, but the key is to change it.

If you want to literally change the world, then you need Historical Materialism.

Marxist analysis is ultimately underpinned by historical evidence. Whether it's the class analysis of the strike waves in China just a few months ago, or the historical interpretation of Chinese and Roman societies 2000 years ago, Marxism is always based on concrete and real history.

Therefore when Marxists look at religions, they don't look at them in an "abstract" way, separate from the historical dimension. Everything is ultimately history or it's nothing. Religions have absolutely no meaning devoid of their historical character.

So it is clear that religions are reactionary in general simply from empirical historical observation: Historically most religions played relatively reactionary roles, therefore religions are reactionary. Simple. What religions claim on paper is largely irrelevant. We judge people not by what they say, but by what they do. Even today the PRC claims that it is a democratic socialist state on paper, does this mean China today really is a democratic socialist state? No. Just because some religious people claim to be "angelic", does this mean the atrocities they have committed in the name of their religions are not really "demonic"? No. As Mao said, revisionism can be worse than capitalism itself, and the worst "demons" are those that are cloaked in "angelic" trappings.

If you claim to be a Marxist and don't even know what historical materialism is, then it is somewhat worrying to be frank.

[Sentinel]

Iseul and NoXion really hit the nail on the head. The left will support muslims against racism, but most of us will luckily never support religion per se, because it's something oppressive per se. The exception are either populists who've sold their own ideals to get aupport in elections etc, or people that haven't read their history.

I have no problem working towards a common goal with secular muslims (or other religious people) who can keep religion and politics separate. By that I mean those who are willing to accept a totally secular society where

1) religion has no influence, and religious propaganda won't be tolerated

2) there exists equal rights for all, including for instance the right to a secular education

But ultimately there is a conflict of interests between the revolutionary left and all religions, that will surface in one way or another, sooner or later. I do know that it's impossible to go into people's heads and make them stop believing, and thus I oppose persecution (solely) due to religious views as both counterproductive and ineffective.

Instead we must work against religion by the ways of scientific education and debating, and in a socialist society also by the way of deprivation of public funding, publicity, and propaganda opportunities for religious organisations.

But all forms of religious extremism need to be combated from the start. You can ask any communist from Iran what happens when you form united fronts with that kind of people. Those that are still alive.

[Rafiq]

The OP is a condescending moron who thinks that all Muslims are like children - we mustn't hurt their precious widdle feewings or they'll throw a temper tantrum and not like us. Let's face facts; there will always be a proportion of religious believers (let alone Muslims) who will oppose or dislike us simply for who we are; people who want to actively make the world a better place, rather than leaving it to the will of Gods or to Fate. Hell, Jesus himself (or whoever wrote his script) said "the poor you will always have with you". You can find similar justifications of the current order in most religions because, surprise surprise, religion is an excellent tool for enforcing social and political conformity.

Not to mention of course the fundamental uselessness of attempting radical social change without testing and challenging people's closely-held beliefs, which mostly exist not as a consequence of a rational process of reasoning, but are there simply because that's what they were taught from childhood.

In order to break our chains for good, a good place to start is with the chains in our heads.


So is it okay to be Racist or Anti-Semitic, under the logic of "They aren't Children"?

It's about Respect....

if you want more support...

Stop scaring people away.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Yo Islam is reactionary, doctinally speaking, it is incompatible with Marxism.

That said, it isn't impossible for a muslim to aid the communist movement, but they would be fundamentally confused and each of the ideas would act as an acid on the other.

Also I fail to see why I should give any scrap of respect to a belief system which most of its followers hold women should live under bedsheets.

[mikelepore]

This is how you scare them away.If my question is a valid one, then that supercedes the effects of asking the question. The Bible is probably the most sadistic religious text, but to my knowledge there is not one remaining faction that accepts the Bible literally, with the countless reasons for people to be stoned to death. However, Islam still has a few factions that appear to accept a religious text literally, and where it says that people should get stoned there are some people who start gathering the stones. That is a cause for concern.
NO, THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT.That's great. Then all religious believers who clarify that they reject the worst passages of their scriptures as the superstitions of uneducated ancient people should be welcomed with open arms into the revolutionary cause. Maybe all followers of revealed religions who apply for membership in leftist organizations should get asked this question: "In the religious text that you believe in, which parts of it do you denounce as false?" Then the applicants can point out, for example, I believe in the correctness of paragraphs 1,3,5, and 7, while paragraphs 2,4, and 6 are nonsense.
THERE ARE ONLY FIVE PILLERS OF ISLAM THAT MUSLIMS MUST FOLLOW.Out of curiosity, when the angel Gabriel appeared to the Prophet and dictated the word of God for him to transcribe, I wonder if the angel was mainly correct about the Five Pillars, and possibly inaccurate in reporting the thousands of other verses. Perhaps the all-knowing creator gave the assignment to an angel who turned out to be a poor reporter.

[Crux]

Also I fail to see why I should give any scrap of respect to a belief system which most of its followers hold women should live under bedsheets.
I think this was the attitude Shariati was referring to. I fail to see how veils are more opressing or sexist than all the other patriarchal and sexist structures we have right here in th enlightened west.
You wouldn't shun away a female member who conforms to western norms on how to dress, would you?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So is it okay to be Racist or Anti-Semitic, under the logic of "They aren't Children"?

It's about Respect....

if you want more support...

Stop scaring people away.

Red herring. Where the fuck did I mention racism or anti-Semitism, and how the fuck are they related to anti-theism?

Those who are seriously religious should be scared of revolution, because it means the end of their racket and the end of religion as a major influence on society.

If we sacrifice our principles in order to win the popularity of contemporary prejudice, then nothing will change in any meaningful way.

[Crimson Commissar]

This is how you scare them away.

NO, THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

THERE ARE ONLY FIVE PILLERS OF ISLAM THAT MUSLIMS MUST FOLLOW.

ONE OF THEM, ISN'T AMBUSHING PEOPLE AND KILLING THEM.


BY THE WAY, IT IS FORBIDDEN IN ISLAM TO TELL PEOPLE "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL" OR BELIEVE OTHERS TO HELL.
So, let's see here.... The five pillars of Islam in Shia islam:

"Monotheism, god is one and unique"
Could be interpreted as reactionary, but....seems okay?

"Justice, the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, fairness, and equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics."
This likely means muslim ethics. While there are some islamic morals that we should agree with, there are many reactionary ones, like how God is seen as the one, SUPREME ruler that NO ONE should question. Denying that muslims believe that is ridiculous, even if you are a muslim yourself.

"Prophethood, the institution by which God sends emissaries, or prophets, to guide mankind."
Obviously reactionary. No man should be regarded as being more important than any other man.

"Leadership, A divine institution which succeeded the institution of Prophethood. Its appointees are divinely appointed."
Again, obviously reactionary.

"Last Judgement, God's final assessment of humanity."
SO FUCKING OBVIOUSLY reactionary. From what I know of this event that muslims predict, it's basically God fucking DESTROYING THE WORLD and torturing anyone who disobeys him. Yeah, that's reactionary as fuck.

Sunni version seems to be the same sort of thing, so I won't bother going over that one.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think this was the attitude Shariati was referring to. I fail to see how veils are more opressing or sexist than all the other patriarchal and sexist structures we have right here in th enlightened west.
You wouldn't shun away a female member who conforms to western norms on how to dress, would you?


The veil is not intrinsically wrong, it's only wrong when it's forced on women.

While I clearly oppose Islamophobia, I think if you say that women in semi-feudal Islamic countries (not all Islamic countries are semi-feudal of course, e.g. Turkey) are just as oppressed as women in advanced capitalist countries, then that is not objectively correct. Capitalism is still relatively more progressive than semi-feudalism, and modern culture is still relatively more progressive than traditional culture.

I mean, do you know how a culturally radical woman actually feels when she is being forced to wear the veil all the time? I don't think you do, and you cannot pretend that such culturally radical women do not exist. Soviet Afghanistan for instance had relatively good women's rights and a relatively liberal dress code but the counter-revolution by reactionary Islamist theocrats that destroyed the deformed worker's state in Afghanistan (yes it was deformed but it was still a worker's state, like China and the USSR) meant that women's rights regressed back to near-medieval levels.

In any case, why make an exception for Islamic civilisation? Are you going to say that the practice of foot-binding for women in semi-feudal Confucian China is no more oppressive than Western women wearing high heels as well?

The more backward Islamist countries (not countries like Turkey) need a "cultural revolution" similar to China's own May 4th movement in 1919, that's an objective fact.

[Queercommie Girl]

Also I fail to see why I should give any scrap of respect to a belief system which most of its followers hold women should live under bedsheets.


Actually there is nothing wrong with the veil itself, I think it can actually look quite pretty.

In fact, in terms of objective physiological analysis, wearing the veil is less damaging to women than wearing high heels as in Western culture. Scientific study has shown that long-term wearing of high heels can have negative physiological effects on women.

The problem is not with Islamic culture in this sense intrinsically, but with the reactionary notion in semi-feudal and theocratic cultures that women must wear the veil at all times. Capitalist culture is still superior and more progressive relatively speaking than semi-feudal theocratic culture, but there is no reason why Islamic cultures cannot also advance to the modern capitalist stage.

Soviet Afghanistan actually moved beyond the capitalist stage. It was a deformed worker's state that still kept many aspects of Islamic culture. Women still wore the veil occasionally in Soviet Afghanistan, but it was never imposed on anyone.

[hatzel]

Those who are seriously religious should be scared of revolution, because it means the end of their racket and the end of religion as a major influence on society.

I think that's kind of...the opposite of the seriously religious. I mean, the seriously religious would believe no matter what, even if they were the last person alive who held their faith, even if every person who passed them on the street spat in their face for their faith, whatever. The seriously religious couldn't care less about the influence their religion has on society...

[Queercommie Girl]

I think that's kind of...the opposite of the seriously religious. I mean, the seriously religious would believe no matter what, even if they were the last person alive who held their faith, even if every person who passed them on the street spat in their face for their faith, whatever. The seriously religious couldn't care less about the influence their religion has on society...

Not all religions are faith-centric, you know. Confucianism for instance is virtue-centric, it is based on doing good, not on a certain set of beliefs. Confucianism can be either theistic like Judaism or atheistic like secular ethics. The faith of Confucianism is not primarily in God but in goodness and justice. As long as there are opportunities to do good and fight for justice, which should actually increase in a socialist society, there is nothing for Confucianism to worry about.

Not that I am a Confucian, but I'm just pointing out that it is wrong to assume that every religion is faith-centric like the Abrahamic faiths. Actually Judaism is the most virtue-centric out of all the Abrahamic religions, so you should understand what I'm talking about.

Confucians do not worship God, they worship the idealistic concept of Goodness and Justice in a "platonic" sense. "Fundamentalist" Confucianism suggests that it is good to literally throw away everything for the pursuit of the ideal of justice, without any kind of strategic consideration, even if it means one's entire clan is completely tortured to death and exterminated. In other words Confucianism is like the ultimate form of "feudal chivalry and knighthood". Strictly speaking from a Marxist perspective, this is still wrong, because "goodness and justice" do not really exist as idealistic concepts. But I think to worship Justice is better than to worship God, as long as the concept of "justice" is interpreted according to socialist standards.

[Stand Your Ground]

Religion bashing of all types of religious people is too common on the left, we need to let people be, religious or not.

[Rafiq]

yo islam is reactionary, doctinally speaking, it is incompatible with marxism.

That said, it isn't impossible for a muslim to aid the communist movement, but they would be fundamentally confused and each of the ideas would act as an acid on the other.

Also i fail to see why i should give any scrap of respect to a belief system which most of its followers hold women should live under bedsheets.

are you seriously joking right now?

Do you even know any muslim people?

You don't know shit about what most of it's followers think.

[Rafiq]

So, let's see here.... The five pillars of Islam in Shia islam:

"Monotheism, god is one and unique"
Could be interpreted as reactionary, but....seems okay?

"Justice, the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, fairness, and equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics."
This likely means muslim ethics. While there are some islamic morals that we should agree with, there are many reactionary ones, like how God is seen as the one, SUPREME ruler that NO ONE should question. Denying that muslims believe that is ridiculous, even if you are a muslim yourself.

"Prophethood, the institution by which God sends emissaries, or prophets, to guide mankind."
Obviously reactionary. No man should be regarded as being more important than any other man.

"Leadership, A divine institution which succeeded the institution of Prophethood. Its appointees are divinely appointed."
Again, obviously reactionary.

"Last Judgement, God's final assessment of humanity."
SO FUCKING OBVIOUSLY reactionary. From what I know of this event that muslims predict, it's basically God fucking DESTROYING THE WORLD and torturing anyone who disobeys him. Yeah, that's reactionary as fuck.

Sunni version seems to be the same sort of thing, so I won't bother going over that one.

:laugh:

You do realize those aren't the five pillars.

[Magón]

are you seriously joking right now?

Do you even know any muslim people?

You don't know shit about what most of it's followers think.

Well you can't deny that in the Middle East, most Muslim nations do have their women with some sort of Burka/Veil, and they do get it from the Koran. (That's what they say.)

[Widerstand]

:laugh:

You do realize those aren't the five pillars.

Prayer, fasting (Ramadan), what were the other three?

[Rafiq]

Well you can't deny that in the Middle East, most Muslim nations do have their women with some sort of Burka/Veil, and they do get it from the Koran. (That's what they say.)

Show me the verse please :rolleyes:

Not one time in the Koran does it mention women having to wear any sort of clothing.

All it sais is to "dress modestly". So not even those veils that cover hair are required.

And in the Middle East, most of the Nations aren't Muslim at all, they are all Arab culture society's.

Go to one of them, and you will see it has more to do with Arab Culture then Islam.

[Rafiq]

Prayer, fasting (Ramadan), what were the other three?

Prayer, Fasting, Hajj, Zakat(Charity), and Saying at least once in your life "La Ilah ha Il allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah"(There is no God But God and Muhammad is his prophet).


That's it.

[Widerstand]

Saying at least once in your life "La Ilah ha Il allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah"(There is no God But God and Muhammad is his prophet)

Doesn't that only count if there's a Muslim nearby when you say it (afaik it's the creed, ergo if you say it with a Muslim nearby you "are" a Muslim)?

Also do most Muslims really do Hajj? Maybe once in a life, but surely not annually?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well you can't deny that in the Middle East, most Muslim nations do have their women with some sort of Burka/Veil, and they do get it from the Koran. (That's what they say.)

The primary problem is not with Islam intrinsically, (of course, philosophically I am a firm materialist) but with the kind of theocratic fundamentalist regime one gets in many backward semi-feudal societies. But in principle any culture can be semi-feudal and highly reactionary, whether it's Islam, Christianity or Confucianism. When one starts to treat every single line in their "holy books" as "literal truth", then yes that is quite a serious problem.

Soviet Afghanistan still had many Islamic cultural elements, but women's rights there were no worse than in any other deformed worker's states, such as China or the USSR. So the problem is not with Islam intrinsically, but a reactionary, backward, semi-feudal theocratic fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

[Magón]

Show me the verse please :rolleyes:

Not one time in the Koran does it mention women having to wear any sort of clothing.

Well, I don't have a Koran with me at the moment to find if you're right or not, so sorry I can't help. I'm just saying what I've heard from people, from say, the Middle East. More specifically, Iraq and Iran.


And in the Middle East, most of the Nations aren't Muslim at all, they are all Arab culture society's.

Then why does Iran have these Islamic leaders telling people how to live, eat, etc. Islam is highly integrated into Arab culture, it's their main religion after all.

[Rafiq]

Doesn't that only count if there's a Muslim nearby when you say it (afaik it's the creed, ergo if you say it with a Muslim nearby you "are" a Muslim)?

Also do most Muslims really do Hajj? Maybe once in a life, but surely not annually?

Well you don't have to go if you can't.

It is only required if you are able to.

And, I would say yes, Muslims go at least once in there lifetime.

Some do, some don't.

What do you mean annually? If they do go more then once, probably in between 10-20 years.

[Magón]

The primary problem is not with Islam intrinsically, (of course, philosophically I am a firm materialist) but with the kind of theocratic fundamentalist regime one gets in many backward semi-feudal societies. But in principle any culture can be semi-feudal and highly reactionary, whether it's Islam, Christianity or Confucianism. When one starts to treat every single line in their "holy books" as "literal truth", then yes that is quite a serious problem.

Soviet Afghanistan still had many Islamic cultural elements, but women's rights there were no worse than in any other deformed worker's states, such as China or the USSR. So the problem is not with Islam intrinsically, but a reactionary, backward, semi-feudal theocratic fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

Sure, but again, when you've got a majority of people following so called "holy men", then these sort of things get taken out of context and it does become the "norm" to say the least.

[Queercommie Girl]

Of course, the "acid test" for all those who claim to be "Islamic Marxists" is this:

If they refuse to completely denounce semi-feudal theocratic Islamist regimes as ultra-reactionary simply because "they are also Muslim", then they do not deserve to be called Marxists or socialists. Otherwise, politically we can still ally with them, despite fundamental philosophical differences.

Similarly, for all those who claim to be "Confucian Marxists" in China:

Fair enough that they seem to focus so much more on "socialist morality" than any Western socialist ever would, but if they start to actually apologise for the imperial Chinese state of the past and argue that China should restore its monarchy then they don't deserve to be considered as "socialist" at all.

It is not enough just to be anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, as Marx stated very clearly in the Communist Manifesto, feudal-socialism is also anti-capitalist but in many ways it is even more reactionary than capitalism is.

[Red Commissar]

Shariati, can you explain to how exactly RevLeft scares Muslims away from the left movement? (I wasn't aware Revleft even had that kind of influence!). I don't know, it just seems you are bagging on a few users who disagree with you.

Last I checked Revleft isn't Platypus, it isn't a site endorses hatred or misunderstanding towards Muslims.

[Rafiq]

Shariati, can you explain to how exactly RevLeft scares Muslims away from the left movement? (I wasn't aware Revleft even had that kind of influence!). I don't know, it just seems you are bagging on a few users who disagree with you.

Last I checked Revleft isn't Platypus, it isn't a site endorses hatred or misunderstanding towards Muslims.

Take a look at "Islam is a Fascist Idealogical" thread and just read all the garbage.

And more.

[Red Commissar]

Take a look at "Islam is a Fascist Idealogical" thread and just read all the garbage.

And it doesn't strike you that this thread was started in OI? Òr that the person you are striking against is the same user (poopy)? I mean it seems most of the people are disagreeing with poopy anyways.



And more.

Not really. It just seems you are lashing out at invisible beasts here. Revleft never really struck me as a site that would "scare" away Muslims. As far as I can see you have problems with a handful of users, either being militantly Atheist or getting caught up in Christopher Hitchens style nonsense.

[Rafiq]

Not really. It just seems you are lashing out at invisible beasts here. Revleft never really struck me as a site that would "scare" away Muslims. As far as I can see you have problems with a handful of users, either being militantly Atheist or getting caught up in Christopher Hitchens style nonsense.

I never said Revleft itself was scaring away Muslims.

I was saying that People on the site are.

I have always been convincing Muslims to become Socialists, and posts like that are just destroying my work.

[Red Commissar]

I never said Revleft itself was scaring away Muslims.

I was saying that People on the site are.

This site is revleft though. The way I read your post is that we here on Revleft are somehow unwelcoming towards Muslims.


I have always been convincing Muslims to become Socialists, and posts like that are just destroying my work.

Just how exactly? The people you must be 'convincing' must be pretty fickle in conviction if they get turned away by a post they somehow came across on Revleft of all places.

[Crux]

So, let's see here.... The five pillars of Islam in Shia islam:

"Monotheism, god is one and unique"
Could be interpreted as reactionary, but....seems okay?

"Justice, the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, fairness, and equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics."
This likely means muslim ethics. While there are some islamic morals that we should agree with, there are many reactionary ones, like how God is seen as the one, SUPREME ruler that NO ONE should question. Denying that muslims believe that is ridiculous, even if you are a muslim yourself.

"Prophethood, the institution by which God sends emissaries, or prophets, to guide mankind."
Obviously reactionary. No man should be regarded as being more important than any other man.

"Leadership, A divine institution which succeeded the institution of Prophethood. Its appointees are divinely appointed."
Again, obviously reactionary.

"Last Judgement, God's final assessment of humanity."
SO FUCKING OBVIOUSLY reactionary. From what I know of this event that muslims predict, it's basically God fucking DESTROYING THE WORLD and torturing anyone who disobeys him. Yeah, that's reactionary as fuck.

Sunni version seems to be the same sort of thing, so I won't bother going over that one.
You seem terribly concerned with the power and judgment of god for an atheist. Are you sure you're not god fearing?

[WeAreReborn]

I never said Revleft itself was scaring away Muslims.

I was saying that People on the site are.

I have always been convincing Muslims to become Socialists, and posts like that are just destroying my work.
Well you kinda did. Also the main point why people were so resistant, for a lack of a better word, in their arguments was because of how you titled this thread. You commanding people to stop doing something because you disagree with a tactic is ridiculous. Plus that is great you are trying to convince Muslims but don't expect us to agree with their religion and hold their hand and say we will accept your religion and embrace it! We are tolerant but I'm sure most leftists agree for the abolition of religion, even if that isn't the primary goal. This site is a leftist site made for discussion about that, we have no obligation to promote or uphold religion, if anything the opposite.

[Rafiq]

Well you kinda did. Also the main point why people were so resistant, for a lack of a better word, in their arguments was because of how you titled this thread. You commanding people to stop doing something because you disagree with a tactic is ridiculous. Plus that is great you are trying to convince Muslims but don't expect us to agree with their religion and hold their hand and say we will accept your religion and embrace it! We are tolerant but I'm sure most leftists agree for the abolition of religion, even if that isn't the primary goal. This site is a leftist site made for discussion about that, we have no obligation to promote or uphold religion, if anything the opposite.

When did I ask to accept there Religion for yourself!

I am not asking you to change your Religious views personally!

I'm asking you treat Muslims, who are coming to this site because they were discriminated against, with Respect,

Rather then throwing verses of the Koran at them that you don't like, and telling them they can't be Muslims and Leftists at the same time ect.

This has been done many times.


All I ask is for people not to act like total Jerks to them.


I support Gay Rights, does that mean I must be Gay? No!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that's kind of...the opposite of the seriously religious. I mean, the seriously religious would believe no matter what, even if they were the last person alive who held their faith, even if every person who passed them on the street spat in their face for their faith, whatever. The seriously religious couldn't care less about the influence their religion has on society...

That's the sort of believer who nobody really hears or cares about, and so they don't enter into the equation. If spreading the faith is seemingly so unimportant to them, then they won't stand in the way of secularism.

However, in the real world, many believers apparently feel that spreading the faith and maintaining their religious hegemony is important, hence the preaching, the proselytising, the constant attempts to get their beliefs enacted into law and their fellow believers in political office, the jealous guardianship of their "right" to indoctrinate children, and so on and on and on...

No wonder! A religion that does little or nothing to perpetuate itself is a religion on the way to becoming socially irrelevant at best and utterly extinct at worst.

[Red Commissar]

When did I ask to accept there Religion for yourself!

I am not asking you to change your Religious views personally!

I'm asking you treat Muslims, who are coming to this site because they were discriminated against, with Respect,

Rather then throwing verses of the Koran at them that you don't like, and telling them they can't be Muslims and Leftists at the same time ect.

This has been done many times.


All I ask is for people not to act like total Jerks to them.


I support Gay Rights, does that mean I must be Gay? No!

I can perfectly understand and I agree, but why don't you take a deep breath and step back? Honestly it seems you may be overreacting a bit- the bit about religion and socialism has always been problematic and some users won't accept it- this isn't unique to Islam, there had been plenty of issues conflicting with Christian socialists but that doesn't mean revleft or "people" disown them.

Again to me it seems that you have an issue with a couple of users here (and looking from your posting that seems to be the case), and you should take that up with them. Don't expect the rest of us to be your personal army in settling those accounts.

The internet is just like a big, empty room that echoes. A lot of reactionaries and unfortunately people on our end too become emboldened by thinking that they say something that matters or that people are agreeing with them over things they wouldn't get agreement over in real life.

The best thing for you to do, if you are concerned about this, is to address more of it in real life as opposed to lashing out on some people on the internet. Sure, you might be able to "clean" up Revleft, but you'll still have morons elsewhere. It's a losing battle if you do that on the internet.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I think this was the attitude Shariati was referring to. I fail to see how veils are more opressing or sexist than all the other patriarchal and sexist structures we have right here in th enlightened west.
You wouldn't shun away a female member who conforms to western norms on how to dress, would you?

I think there is some confusion on this issue.

I wouldn't shun someone for their dress sense per say, but if their dress was due to reactionary attitudes (which I believe the idea that women should cover themselves to preserve their chastity undoubtably is) I would disapprove of those attitudes.


Even ignoring what seems to me the obvious notion that no female exclusive culutural norms in the west are as extreme as covering your body to the extent these women do. And nor are they at all comparble to the what are clearly at least somewhat accepted features of the societies where these traditions come from - honour killings, rape in marriage etc, I have to wonder what part of any materialist anlysis would suggest that culutral norms imported from backward, underedeveloped nations would no less sexist than ones in the West?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Actually there is nothing wrong with the veil itself, I think it can actually look quite pretty.

In fact, in terms of objective physiological analysis, wearing the veil is less damaging to women than wearing high heels as in Western culture. Scientific study has shown that long-term wearing of high heels can have negative physiological effects on women.

The problem is not with Islamic culture in this sense intrinsically, but with the reactionary notion in semi-feudal and theocratic cultures that women must wear the veil at all times. Capitalist culture is still superior and more progressive relatively speaking than semi-feudal theocratic culture, but there is no reason why Islamic cultures cannot also advance to the modern capitalist stage.


Soviet Afghanistan actually moved beyond the capitalist stage. It was a deformed worker's state that still kept many aspects of Islamic culture. Women still wore the veil occasionally in Soviet Afghanistan, but it was never imposed on anyone.

I don't think we disagree on anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with particular clothing styles - but the reasons why they are worn. If people honestly think the veil is a "cool" style to wear, thats fine, but I am willing to bet that they wear it for highly reactionary culutural expectations.

However I think you should be more clear that the expectation to wear high heels to seem more sexually attractive is in no way comparable to the expectation to cover your entire body in a sheet to preserve your chastity.

[freepalestine]

there can be a fine line between hostility towards islam(and any religion for that matter)
and hostility towards all muslims.thesedays
ironically recently a muslim (a political islamist)said that islamophobia was hatred towards islam.(???)

[Crux]

The veil is not intrinsically wrong, it's only wrong when it's forced on women.

While I clearly oppose Islamophobia, I think if you say that women in semi-feudal Islamic countries (not all Islamic countries are semi-feudal of course, e.g. Turkey) are just as oppressed as women in advanced capitalist countries, then that is not objectively correct. Capitalism is still relatively more progressive than semi-feudalism, and modern culture is still relatively more progressive than traditional culture.

I mean, do you know how a culturally radical woman actually feels when she is being forced to wear the veil all the time? I don't think you do, and you cannot pretend that such culturally radical women do not exist. Soviet Afghanistan for instance had relatively good women's rights and a relatively liberal dress code but the counter-revolution by reactionary Islamist theocrats that destroyed the deformed worker's state in Afghanistan (yes it was deformed but it was still a worker's state, like China and the USSR) meant that women's rights regressed back to near-medieval levels.

In any case, why make an exception for Islamic civilisation? Are you going to say that the practice of foot-binding for women in semi-feudal Confucian China is no more oppressive than Western women wearing high heels as well?

The more backward Islamist countries (not countries like Turkey) need a "cultural revolution" similar to China's own May 4th movement in 1919, that's an objective fact.
Well, that's not what I mean, I meant painting muslim women as oppressed, in their identity of muslims, is worng and that it can make you blind to oppression right here at home.

[Patchd]

I'm asking you treat Muslims, who are coming to this site because they were discriminated against, with Respect,

Rather then throwing verses of the Koran at them that you don't like, and telling them they can't be Muslims and Leftists at the same time ect.
So you'd stifle debate on a philosophical point simply because you want to appeal to muslims? Would this apply to other religions? Perhaps we should stop criticising christianity on this board too in case any christians might be offended by our arguments and run away.

[Rafiq]

I can perfectly understand and I agree, but why don't you take a deep breath and step back? Honestly it seems you may be overreacting a bit- the bit about religion and socialism has always been problematic and some users won't accept it- this isn't unique to Islam, there had been plenty of issues conflicting with Christian socialists but that doesn't mean revleft or "people" disown them.

Again to me it seems that you have an issue with a couple of users here (and looking from your posting that seems to be the case), and you should take that up with them. Don't expect the rest of us to be your personal army in settling those accounts.

The internet is just like a big, empty room that echoes. A lot of reactionaries and unfortunately people on our end too become emboldened by thinking that they say something that matters or that people are agreeing with them over things they wouldn't get agreement over in real life.

The best thing for you to do, if you are concerned about this, is to address more of it in real life as opposed to lashing out on some people on the internet. Sure, you might be able to "clean" up Revleft, but you'll still have morons elsewhere. It's a losing battle if you do that on the internet.



I know, I am not trying to hunt them down.

But I have noticed some of the comrades here, weren't just being criticized, but harassed.

[Rafiq]

I don't think we disagree on anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with particular clothing styles - but the reasons why they are worn. If people honestly think the veil is a "cool" style to wear, thats fine, but I am willing to bet that they wear it for highly reactionary culutural expectations.

However I think you should be more clear that the expectation to wear high heels to seem more sexually attractive is in no way comparable to the expectation to cover your entire body in a sheet to preserve your chastity.

Every Muslim women I know, wheres the veil by choice.

Just look on the expression of there face, if they are smiling, and laughing, they are doing it by choice,

if they are with their husbands and look depressed, they are forced.


But all of my relatives don't where it,

usually in our culture, only our Grandparent's would wear the veil.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Do you honestly think that because wearing the veil (as far as we can claim things are voluntary) is voluntary means that it is not a result of sexist and/or reactionary sentiment?

Why the double standard here? Would any of you think the "voluntary" decision of a woman to act in accordance to any other western religious sexist notion (e.g. not wanting an abortion as it is "againsnt god's will") is not bad, or a result of reactionary attitudes which should be removed? Why do you not go anywhere near to applying the same standard to Islam, or Islamic "culture" which, compared to that of Western Christianity as both are expressed right now, is clearly more reactionary and backward.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, that's not what I mean, I meant painting muslim women as oppressed, in their identity of muslims, is worng and that it can make you blind to oppression right here at home.

It's pointless to speak about "Muslim women" as if it's a single category. Marxism rejects cultural essentialism, the idea that "Islamic culture" can be on the whole "progressive" or "reactionary". The fact of the matter is that Muslim states at different stages of development are vastly different from each other. Turkey is fundamentally different from Iran or Afghanistan.

And yes, objectively speaking women in semi-feudal theocratic countries are more oppressed than women in modern capitalist countries, that's a fact. Marx has always said that feudalism is even more reactionary than capitalism. The key thing here is not that "Islam is reactionary", but "semi-feudal theocracy is reactionary". One can argue that the deformed worker's state that was Soviet Afghanistan was still an "Islamic country" culturally, Islam is even on its national flag, but women's rights there were actually better in some ways than those in the United States.

Do you deny the fact that the Islamist theocrats that destroyed Soviet Afghanistan were agents of a social counter-revolution, and the fact that women's rights severely regressed in Afghanistan as a result? Yes, Soviet Afghanistan was only a deformed worker's state, but it was still relatively more progressive than capitalist states, let alone semi-feudal theocratic states. It was no more deformed than the USSR itself.

You cannot deny that culturally speaking many Islamic countries are even more reactionary and oppressive than US imperialism is. However, these countries are not oppressive because they are Muslim, but because they are undemocratic, semi-feudal and theocratic.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think we disagree on anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with particular clothing styles - but the reasons why they are worn. If people honestly think the veil is a "cool" style to wear, thats fine, but I am willing to bet that they wear it for highly reactionary culutural expectations.

However I think you should be more clear that the expectation to wear high heels to seem more sexually attractive is in no way comparable to the expectation to cover your entire body in a sheet to preserve your chastity.

The key thing here is whether or not it is forced on women.

When it comes to "cultural expectations" in themselves, I pretty much take a neutral position. I believe Marxists have no right and are not qualified to dictate to people what cultural expressions are "progressive" and which are "reactionary". Wearing things so that one can fit in with a commercialised image of "sexiness" is not necessarily more progressive than the cultural idea of wearing certain things for the sake of modesty.

Even today, in some Western companies, they expect their female employees to wear skirts, stockings and high heels every single working day because that's supposed to be the "corporate uniform". Now there is nothing wrong with skirts, stockings and high heels intrinsically, but a company forcing people to wear them so that their male bosses can mentally masturbate over the "sexy images" of his female underlings can be just as bad as forcing people to wear the veil.

Forcing male workers to wear a tie all the time, even when it's hot during the summer, is also pretty oppressive.

[Thirsty Crow]

However, they wont ever be, while they are Muslims, Marxists. The two are mutualy exclusive.

No, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive since the interaction between a person's "theory of history" (the way in which an individual conceptualizes the historical shifts, changes and development) and his/her religious belief are not fixed. In other words, a person can be a Muslim/Christian in that he/she believes in the existence of God, but the person can at the same time hold quite a materialist position on historical development and the current social and political situation.

It seems to me that you do not want to understand that religious belief itself is an "object" of historical development, especially when it comes to the interaction I've described above.

And you in fact reinforce OP's suspicions and doubts. I'll elaborate on this.
You in fact imply, probably unconsciously, that any religious person is inferior to us materialists by insisting that the two attitudes are incompatible. It is implied that the momentum and possible success of the revolutionary movement in fact depends solely on upholding the materialist, Marxist proper position. This is a value judgement referring to specific forms of consciousness, which result in specific forms of action. But from that value judgement you proceed by insisting on the incompatibility, and objectively you are demoting religious Socialists to a "second class revolutionaries" position.

This is my opinion, and correct my if you disagree.

[Queercommie Girl]

You seem terribly concerned with the power and judgment of god for an atheist. Are you sure you're not god fearing?

To be fair to him though, I think CC used to be a Christian of some kind, it takes time to fully "recover" ideologically from the insane theological ramblings of religious fundamentalists. That's why he seems to get a knee-jerk reaction whenever "religion" is mentioned.

Of course, objectively their religious ramblings are wrong, but as the Chinese saying goes: "A lie repeated a thousand times effectively becomes the truth". For instance, a gay fundamentalist Christian who is constantly being told that he needs to be "exorcised" might start to actually believe this himself.

People like that are oppressed victims of reactionary fundamentalist religion in a reactionary class society. It's not right to make fun of them, IMO.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive since the interaction between a person's "theory of history" (the way in which an individual conceptualizes the historical shifts, changes and development) and his/her religious belief are not fixed. In other words, a person can be a Muslim/Christian in that he/she believes in the existence of God, but the person can at the same time hold quite a materialist position on historical development and the current social and political situation.

It seems to me that you do not want to understand that religious belief itself is an "object" of historical development, especially when it comes to the interaction I've described above.

And you in fact reinforce OP's suspicions and doubts. I'll elaborate on this.
You in fact imply, probably unconsciously, that any religious person is inferior to us materialists by insisting that the two attitudes are incompatible. It is implied that the momentum and possible success of the revolutionary movement in fact depends solely on upholding the materialist, Marxist proper position. This is a value judgement referring to specific forms of consciousness, which result in specific forms of action. But from that value judgement you proceed by insisting on the incompatibility, and objectively you are demoting religious Socialists to a "second class revolutionaries" position.

This is my opinion, and correct my if you disagree.

Philosophically materialism and idealism are indeed incompatible. Not just the belief in God of Abrahamic religions, but even the belief in Justice as an absolute ideal by Confucians is strictly speaking not compatible with materialism, which states that "morality" is only a socio-economic construction.

This is not to say that genuinely progressive religious socialists should be banned from joining socialist and communist parties or that they should be discriminated against.

To suggest that materialism and science must take precedence over religious thought is not "unconscious discrimination" in any way, it is simply the basic feature of any secular modern society. It's not even exclusively socialist or leftist. If religious people actually believe that their religious beliefs should carry as much weight as scientific materialism, then they are fundamentalists and reactionary.

In other words, we are not discriminating against any religious people by simply stating that scientific philosophies must take precedence over religious philosophies in the kind of progressive modern secular society we are trying to build.

[Dimentio]

I'm sick and tired of people here Scaring Muslims away from the Socialist Movement.


I have gotten so Many Muslims in the real world to be come Socialists, and if they saw half the stuff these people are posting, they would AUTOMATICALLY become Capitalists and say "screw these Anti-Muslim Commies".

Every time a Muslim is looking into/studying the left, some of you scare them away by Bashing them, there religion, and sometimes there ethnicity.

I think you need all the support you can get, and if a Muslim chooses to be a Leftists, you need to respect that.

Would you rather have a Muslim be a Right-Wing fundamentalist or a Left-Wing moderate?

Choose wisely.


Sadly, it's impossible to establish a civilised debate on a discussion forum.

[Thirsty Crow]

Philosophically materialism and idealism are indeed incompatible. Not just the belief in God of Abrahamic religions, but even the belief in Justice as an absolute ideal by Confucians is strictly speaking not compatible with materialism, which states that "morality" is only a socio-economic construction.Well, we are lucky that we have the last of Marx's thesis on Feuerbach then. Maybe we wouldn't dwell on philosophical differences if we reminded ourselves more often of that fact.
Sorry, but I should be as harsh as possible in order that my playing the devil's advocate, which is something similar to what I'm really trying to communicate as an atheist and materialist, be effective :p
Oh, and a don't think that morality is only a socio-economic construct, if I am to go all the way.
What I mean is the following: while morality is a socio-economic construct, it is also a phenomenon without which there would not be a human society. Not one. It is implied as a necessity if we concede that humans are social beings by nature.
And, in my opinion, this is precisely what has been transformed into magical reasoning, maybe we could say - an intuition of what I've said about morality - which later on changed into world religions as we know them.


This is not to say that genuinely progressive religious socialists should be banned from joining socialist and communist parties or that they should be discriminated against.I am aware of the fact that this does not follow logically from your previous remark regarding the philosophical incompatibility of religious belief and materialism.


To suggest that materialism and science must take precedence over religious thought is not "unconscious discrimination" in any way, it is simply the basic feature of any secular modern society.But you did not qualify more specifically this insistence on materialism and science. You're being quite vague here, especially since you invoke the notion of a secular society - which rests solely upon the separation between Church and State and freedom of religious belief and practice.
I would also argue that there is no inherent need for materialism taking precedence over religious thought when it comes to public affairs. What I mean is this: we may witness not a withering away of religion, but rather a historical change which would not necessitate that religious people make decisions which affect everyone by means of reffering to their holy texts.


It's not even exclusively socialist or leftist. If religious people actually believe that their religious beliefs should carry as much weight as scientific materialism, then they are fundamentalists and reactionary. If you by this mean the people who preach and hold the belief that everyone should convert to their faith - I agree completely.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh, and a don't think that morality is only a socio-economic construct, if I am to go all the way.

What I mean is the following: while morality is a socio-economic construct, it is also a phenomenon without which there would not be a human society. Not one. It is implied as a necessity if we concede that humans are social beings by nature.


But how is that any different from simply stating that "morality is ultimately a socio-economic construct"?

Saying that morality is ultimately a socio-economic construct does not imply one is taking a reductionist viewpoint when it comes to ethics or that ethics do not possess some kind of objective social reality.



But you did not qualify more specifically this insistence on materialism and science. You're being quite vague here, especially since you invoke the notion of a secular society - which rests solely upon the separation between Church and State and freedom of religious belief and practice.
I would also argue that there is no inherent need for materialism taking precedence over religious thought when it comes to public affairs. What I mean is this: we may witness not a withering away of religion, but rather a historical change which would not necessitate that religious people make decisions which affect everyone by means of reffering to their holy texts.


The problem is that we all know that from a scientific perspective, religious beliefs do not have as much logical and empirical validity as scientific beliefs.

Marxism is not just about equalising the productive relations, but also about promoting the further development of the productive forces.

We know that the development of productive forces depend on science and technique, not on religious superstition.

So even if in a socialist society we have a kind of religion which is not discriminatory in anyway - i.e. it is not racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, and does not discriminate against those of other religions etc, so it's not a problem from a humanist perspective, it would still be a problem in terms of the promotion of productivity development. A society based on scientific education would see its productive forces develop in a more liberated way than a society that is based on religious education.

[Optiow]

If youre gonna mobilise the masses you have to avoid insulting them and doing all the militant atheist bullshit.
I believe this is the most logical post in this thread. If we are to mobilize the masses, we can not swear all this atheist crap at them, telling them their religion sucks and they can't be a proper socialist if they don't drop their religion.

We need to embrace what the masses believe in, because we are for the masses.

[Queercommie Girl]

I believe this is the most logical post in this thread. If we are to mobilize the masses, we can not swear all this atheist crap at them, telling them their religion sucks and they can't be a proper socialist if they don't drop their religion.

We need to embrace what the masses believe in, because we are for the masses.


While this is true to some extent, it does not imply that the masses are objectively always right. Of course even if they are not right one should not impose socialist doctrines in a top-down bureaucratic manner, but rather should try to convince them and change their views in a more integrated manner. However, it means we should not be opportunists who throw away ideological principles simply for the sake of attracting more people to socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Would you rather have a Muslim be a Right-Wing fundamentalist or a Left-Wing moderate?

Choose wisely.



That sounds a bit like a threat to me, to be honest.

[DragonQuestWes]

As much as I disagree with Islam, I can say that Muslims are about as human as we are. We can agree that not every Muslim is bad. Same way as we can say that not every Christian or Jew is bad.

The purpose of the Leftist/Socialist/Communist/Anarchist movement is to stop caring about our differences and focus on stuff that REALLY matters, like overthrowing Capitalism and/or Imperialism.


Sadly, it's impossible to establish a civilised debate on a discussion forum.

This is why I usually try to avoid jumping bandwagons, given that a discussion turns ugly. I mean hey, if people wanna have their little debates or arguments, fine, let them. But I'd rather focus on the real issue.

[Crux]

To be fair to him though, I think CC used to be a Christian of some kind, it takes time to fully "recover" ideologically from the insane theological ramblings of religious fundamentalists. That's why he seems to get a knee-jerk reaction whenever "religion" is mentioned.

Of course, objectively their religious ramblings are wrong, but as the Chinese saying goes: "A lie repeated a thousand times effectively becomes the truth". For instance, a gay fundamentalist Christian who is constantly being told that he needs to be "exorcised" might start to actually believe this himself.

People like that are oppressed victims of reactionary fundamentalist religion in a reactionary class society. It's not right to make fun of them, IMO.It's a fundamental flaw in all his argumentation. And I am not interested in a discussion about how "bad God is".

[Optiow]

While this is true to some extent, it does not imply that the masses are objectively always right. Of course even if they are not right one should not impose socialist doctrines in a top-down bureaucratic manner, but rather should try to convince them and change their views in a more integrated manner. However, it means we should not be opportunists who throw away ideological principles simply for the sake of attracting more people to socialism.
Well naturally, and I am not saying we should.

I just think we should not be mindlessly bashing one of the biggest religions in the world, especially when they could be such good allies.

We need to respect them, because a socialist is a socialist. Some are Christian, some are Atheist, why can't some be Muslim also?

[freepalestine]

........
because a socialist is a socialist. Some are Christian, some are Atheist, why can't some be Muslim also?many are .and many were

[Optiow]

many are .and many were
Really? I must admit that I have never really heard of any.

That must solidifies the argument that Muslims are happy to join the cause, but if we continue to ridicule them - why would they join us?

[Queercommie Girl]

It's a fundamental flaw in all his argumentation. And I am not interested in a discussion about how "bad God is".

Whether or not "God" is bad is beside the point, since God doesn't even exist.

But it's a fact that the fundamentalists who often claim to "represent God" can be pretty bad.

It's not about the non-existent superstructure in itself, but rather the underlying socio-economic base which the superstructure reflects upon.

Any discussion about "God" is really just an indirect way of discussing real concrete socio-economic issues.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well naturally, and I am not saying we should.

I just think we should not be mindlessly bashing one of the biggest religions in the world, especially when they could be such good allies.

We need to respect them, because a socialist is a socialist. Some are Christian, some are Atheist, why can't some be Muslim also?

No I don't agree with "bashing Muslims" and I oppose Islamophobia, especially since many Muslim countries are oppressed under Western imperialism.

It does not mean however that I will opportunistically follow a non-materialistic philosophical position or start to actually support semi-feudal theocracies just because they are also "anti-imperialist". That's a matter of principle. Socialism is neither just about principle or just about strategy, but a combination of both.

Political alliances, even with Islamists sometimes, are certainly possible. But Marxists must always maintain our independence.

[freepalestine]

Really? I must admit that I have never really heard of any.

That must solidifies the argument that Muslims are happy to join the cause, but if we continue to ridicule them - why would they join us?who is ridiculing muslims?there is a difference between a political islamists and muslims in general.many leftists are from muslim majority countries,may be not as many as back in the 1960's,70's,etc-

[Red Commissar]

But I have noticed some of the comrades here, weren't just being criticized, but harassed.

Who else? It just seems to be you getting into scuffles with some of the more close minded atheists here as far as I know.

[freepalestine]

Who else? It just seems to be you getting into scuffles with some of the more close minded atheists here as far as I know.maybe.?or maybe with the non-leftist,muslim haters on the forum??

[Widerstand]

maybe.?or maybe with the non-leftist,muslim haters on the forum??

James, James, James, just give us names names names

[freepalestine]

James, James, James, just give us names names namesi didnt mean you

[Widerstand]

i didnt mean you

I'm happy to hear, but I still can't make sense of what posts you are actually talking about.

[freepalestine]

I'm happy to hear, but I still can't make sense of what posts you are actually talking about.the ones by the usual right wing suspects etc

[Magón]

I'm just curious, since it seems that the OP is talking about new users coming on here, or at least browsing on here, and being scared away. Where are all these users? I mean, if they really wanted to prove those who oppose them wrong (which I'm just not picking either side), then why don't they join and speak out; hopefully for them, setting the people right?

I'm just curious because it seems there's not many who are speaking out that Islam isn't a Fascist Ideology, or Oppressive, etc. who are actually Muslim. (Far as I know on here.)

[Crux]

Whether or not "God" is bad is beside the point, since God doesn't even exist.

But it's a fact that the fundamentalists who often claim to "represent God" can be pretty bad.

It's not about the non-existent superstructure in itself, but rather the underlying socio-economic base which the superstructure reflects upon.

Any discussion about "God" is really just an indirect way of discussing real concrete socio-economic issues.
No, no any discussion about "God" isn't that. God's despotic and magical powers concern me about as much as th eventual naval invasion of Switzerland. By Santa Claus. Did you read his post? Or the other posts he's made? He is trying to make the case for any belief in omnipotent beings makes you a totalitarian. Which I think is just plain silly.

[L.A.P.]

I'm sorry I couldn't hear what the OP was saying over the sound of me pissing on the Qur'an.

On a serious note this guy can seriously blow it out his his ass. We don't give respect for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion and yet you're *****ing about lack of respect for Islam. Just because I hate the religion Islam doesn't mean I hate Arab people or necessarily hate people who follow Islam. It's a stupid religion that is factually untrue and contains traits of fascism just like every other religion. Also, the term "militant atheism" is starting to get on my nerves as if being reasonable and being hostile towards unreasonable institutions of hate and fear mongering is a bad thing, anyone that calls me a militant atheist can go fuck themselves. Fuck your demand for special treatment, fuck your religion, and fuck you.

[Thirsty Crow]

But how is that any different from simply stating that "morality is ultimately a socio-economic construct"?

Saying that morality is ultimately a socio-economic construct does not imply one is taking a reductionist viewpoint when it comes to ethics or that ethics do not possess some kind of objective social realityIt is different in relation to the implications borne by the argument. I have tried to show the "natural" origins of religious belief. An the term "construct" bears some connotations which are not in agreement with my argument (and it seems to me that you agree with it), so I pointed it out. For instance, the before mentioned term, that is, its meaning, may be likened to a different meaning of the same term which appears in this sentence: "capitalism is a socio-economic construct". Here there is no "natural" basis, except for satisfaction of human needs, but we all know that this is not a defining factor of this socio-economic formation.
As you can see, I'm insisting on implications and not on outspoken attitudes and statements since it seems to me that this may have something to do with OP's opening statements.



The problem is that we all know that from a scientific perspective, religious beliefs do not have as much logical and empirical validity as scientific beliefs.This is an irrelevant argument since religious belief does not in fact depend upon empirical validity. And the term "scientific belief"...it sounds as a contradiction in terms, especially given the emphasis on empirical validity.


Marxism is not just about equalising the productive relations, but also about promoting the further development of the productive forces.If that's what the majority of people will choose, fine with me. If they choose something else (I can envision a very slow development of productive forces which could leave much more room to other activities), again, fine with me. In any case I'm good with it.


We know that the development of productive forces depend on science and technique, not on religious superstition.Sur, but the development of productive forces is not the only kind of social development that will become possible once capitalism is surpassed.


So even if in a socialist society we have a kind of religion which is not discriminatory in anyway - i.e. it is not racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, and does not discriminate against those of other religions etc, so it's not a problem from a humanist perspective, it would still be a problem in terms of the promotion of productivity development.
Umm, I don't see why there would be a causal relationship between religious belief and problems in terms of promotion of productive forces' development. Religious people may be active as researchers and engineers as well as materialists and atheists. This sounds like a hasty, poor judgement. Could you elaborate and provide further arguments in favour of this position (in fact, you haven't provided any argument, except the paragraph in which you argue that productive forces' development rests on science and not religious belief; but that does not mean that believers cannot be scientists; in other words, it seems that you have made a false equation between atheism and the capacity for taking up the role of the researcher, scientist etc.).

[Rafiq]

Do you honestly think that because wearing the veil (as far as we can claim things are voluntary) is voluntary means that it is not a result of sexist and/or reactionary sentiment?

Why the double standard here? Would any of you think the "voluntary" decision of a woman to act in accordance to any other western religious sexist notion (e.g. not wanting an abortion as it is "againsnt god's will") is not bad, or a result of reactionary attitudes which should be removed? Why do you not go anywhere near to applying the same standard to Islam, or Islamic "culture" which, compared to that of Western Christianity as both are expressed right now, is clearly more reactionary and backward.

Wearing a veil by choice is not Reactionary. There are even Atheist women who do this.

Maybe you should look up the reason for it, without going on the EDL's website.

[Rafiq]

You cannot deny that culturally speaking many Islamic countries are even more reactionary and oppressive than US imperialism is. However, these countries are not oppressive because they are Muslim, but because they are undemocratic, semi-feudal and theocratic.

Those Islamic countries are a result of US Imperialism.

The only Anti-American Islamist nation is Iran, which is less reactionary(still reactionary) then the greatest ally of Imperialism, Saudi Arabia.

Name me an Islamist country, besides Iran, that isn't being completely backed by the US.

[Rafiq]

That sounds a bit like a threat to me, to be honest.

Not a threat. But a reality.

Muslim youth are Radicalizing very fast, and I think we should do our best to draw them into Leftism, because it comes down to this:

If we deny them, they will become Right Wing Fundamentalists

If we accept them, And accept them being Religious, and Teach them, they will be Left Wing Moderates.

Choose Wisely.

[Rafiq]

Who else? It just seems to be you getting into scuffles with some of the more close minded atheists here as far as I know.

Well, even a couple people can have a big influence on how people take this forum.

It all depends how much they do.

[Rafiq]

James, James, James, just give us names names names

Balaclava, poppynogood.

Both are proud Anti-Arab racists,

and supporters of the Fascist Kataeb Party.

[Rafiq]

I'm sorry I couldn't hear what the OP was saying over the sound of me pissing on the Qur'an.

On a serious note this guy can seriously blow it out his his ass. We don't give respect for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion and yet you're *****ing about lack of respect for Islam. Just because I hate the religion Islam doesn't mean I hate Arab people or necessarily hate people who follow Islam. It's a stupid religion that is factually untrue and contains traits of fascism just like every other religion. Also, the term "militant atheism" is starting to get on my nerves as if being reasonable and being hostile towards unreasonable institutions of hate and fear mongering is a bad thing, anyone that calls me a militant atheist can go fuck themselves. Fuck your demand for special treatment, fuck your religion, and fuck you.


Further proving the reason I made this thread.

[freepalestine]

Those Islamic countries are a result of US Imperialism.

The only Anti-American Islamist nation is Iran, which is less reactionary(still reactionary) then the greatest ally of Imperialism, Saudi Arabia.

Name me an Islamist country, besides Iran, that isn't being completely backed by the US.
the main 2 problems throughout the last century in the arabic states have been,and still are western imperialism.and also dictatorships and 'lack' of any real democracy and freedoms.political islam is no alternative,if not worse

[WeAreReborn]

Those Islamic countries are a result of US Imperialism.

The only Anti-American Islamist nation is Iran, which is less reactionary(still reactionary) then the greatest ally of Imperialism, Saudi Arabia.

Name me an Islamist country, besides Iran, that isn't being completely backed by the US.
Iran is extremely reactionary. Most people aren't religiously radical as the figurehead of a president would have us to believe. They feel they are Persian and oppressed. Sure Saudi Arabia is a cesspool of Capitalism but Iran is just as bad but in a different way. Am I saying this is because of Islam? No but I do not see why you are so supporting. Islam has a brutal and horrible history just like Christianity. Though I am tolerant I definitely see more benefit in people following no religion then one.

[freepalestine]

Iran is extremely reactionary. Most people aren't religiously radical as the figurehead of a president would have us to believe. They feel they are Persian and oppressed. Sure Saudi Arabia is a cesspool of Capitalism but Iran is just as bad but in a different way. Am I saying this is because of Islam? No but I do not see why you are so supporting. Islam has a brutal and horrible history just like Christianity. Though I am tolerant I definitely see more benefit in people following no religion then one.....
-55% of iranian citizens are persian.
-i'd say saudi arabia is far worse than iran.although both are islamic fundamentalist govt's, the usa seems to have no trouble with its dealings with saudi arabia,since the creation of that state.basically the wahabist view of islam the saudi regime propagate and finance,has created the likes of al-qaeda and that mindset.

....No but I do not see why you are so supporting. Islam has a brutal and horrible history just like Christianity. Though I am tolerant I definitely see more benefit in people following no religion then onehe might be supportive of islam,because he might be a muslim?so what-although i agree religion is an irrelevance etc, .although the topic was about anti-muslim bigotry (i think),rather than any religion

[Queercommie Girl]

No, no any discussion about "God" isn't that. God's despotic and magical powers concern me about as much as th eventual naval invasion of Switzerland. By Santa Claus. Did you read his post? Or the other posts he's made? He is trying to make the case for any belief in omnipotent beings makes you a totalitarian. Which I think is just plain silly.


His angle of attack is indeed in contradiction of the atheist principle that God does not exist. He is not attacking religion primarily in terms of their socio-economic implications, but solely as if God really exists. That's what you were criticising him for, and that's what I'm saying is contrary to the methods of Historical Materialism. Historical Materialism suggests that actually we shouldn't even give a shit about the abstract theological claims of religions on paper one way or another, the only thing that matters is the concrete implications of religions on the ground in the socio-economic sense.

So I don't know why you are saying "No, no any discussion about "God" isn't that" at all, since actually we are essentially making the same point as far as his arguments go.

"Belief in omnipotent beings" does not directly imply one must be a totalitarian, since there are counter-examples. Many Liberation Theologists believe in God, but many are also genuine socialists at least in the economic sense. However, according to the analysis of Historical Materialism, ultimately the concept of an "omnipotent god" is linked to the emergence of class societies. Now that's a historical fact, since during pre-class primitive communist societies, humans had no concept of a "supreme god". Engels himself said: without an absolutist ruler on earth, there can never be an absolutist ruler in heaven. And when class society fades away under communism, then the socio-economic basis for the non-existent superstructure of an "omnipotent god" would be gone again, which is why Marx predicted religions would gradually fade away in a communist society.

The rise of theism and atheism in ancient China sheds some light on the historical origins of religious belief. The most ancient forms of theistic religions in ancient China were directly linked with the rule of the slave-lord aristocracy class, and were instruments of their class rule.

See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/rise-atheism-ancient-t141770/index.html

The point I was making in the other post is actually just that I think he has had some bad experiences at the personal level with fundamentalist religions before, so even if his approach is wrong, you should show more understanding to him. We should not be too harsh on our comrades, as Lenin said, often it's best to "patiently explain" rather than just throw out f-words or ridiculing people. Of course, that's precisely what CC is not doing towards religious socialists, that's his mistake. It doesn't mean we should repeat his own mistake on him. It's like if a gay ex-fundamentalist Christian seems to bash fundamentalist Christianity a bit excessively, we should understand that to some extent given his background. Aren't you a queer too? Surely you understand what I'm talking about here. Of course, this is purely hypothetical because CC is not gay or queer. But anyhow as Devrim pointed out in his post, even when socialists are showing signs of Islamophobia, which is wrong, it is still better to explain patiently to them why they are wrong, rather than just shout at them or ridicule them.

See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1896532&postcount=32

And to be frank, the only beef I have with CC is his apparent Islamophobia. He obviously denies this himself but I judge people not by what they say, but by what they do. The problem is that he is just falling into using the same kind of racist rhteoric as people like the reactionary EDL. If he were just bashing Big Business funded fundamentalist Christianity in the West and not Islam, I would not even say I disagree with him to be honest.

I think it's time for genuine Marxists to take a firmer materialist position. I am actually somewhat critical of the ideological opportunism shown by many sections of the British left when it comes to religious matters, such as the problems of SWP's Respect co-alition. I sometimes think that no wonder the British left is no way as powerful as the French left, since actually even the capitalist revolution in Britain was not as thorough and radical as the French Revolution. The UK still has a monarchy and a powerful church, and frankly British socialists sometimes cozy up to religions too much.

I actually thought that the CWI was relatively better in this aspect in terms of taking a more orthodox materialist line compared with the SWP and Respect, (I think Respect went as far as explicitly allying with explicitly homophobic Muslims on opportunistic grounds) so don't disappoint me in this.

[Magón]

Shariati are you going to answer my post asking where these Muslims are? And why they're not joining the forum to state their claims, etc. rather than running off or whatever it is you said they're doing?

[Queercommie Girl]

Those Islamic countries are a result of US Imperialism.

The only Anti-American Islamist nation is Iran, which is less reactionary(still reactionary) then the greatest ally of Imperialism, Saudi Arabia.

Name me an Islamist country, besides Iran, that isn't being completely backed by the US.

I agree Iran is better than Saudi Arabia. Iran is actually the result of a "revolution" itself which overthrew the US-backed Shahs.

I don't disagree that US imperialism is actively backing up many theocracies around the world, and not just Islamic ones.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not a threat. But a reality.

Muslim youth are Radicalizing very fast, and I think we should do our best to draw them into Leftism, because it comes down to this:

If we deny them, they will become Right Wing Fundamentalists

If we accept them, And accept them being Religious, and Teach them, they will be Left Wing Moderates.

Choose Wisely.

Strategically you have a point.

A similar argument can be made about drawing white European youths from the Nazis, which is why I don't necessarily oppose socialists participating and intervening in relatively reactionary strikes with anti-immigrant slogans like "British jobs for British workers", as long as socialists keep a clear head themselves and don't take the reactionary position themselves.

But it goes both ways. The danger of "contamination" is always present as well, both for European Nazism and right-wing Islamism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Further proving the reason I made this thread.


In this instance I agree with you. Socialists should support the basic rights and dignity of religious people, as long as they are not reactionary and discriminatory, just like we must support the rights of women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities etc. Of course, with religions there is a fundamental difference due to fundamental philosophical disagreements. But politically there is no difference.

[Rafiq]

the main 2 problems throughout the last century in the arabic states have been,and still are western imperialism.and also dictatorships and 'lack' of any real democracy and freedoms.political islam is no alternative,if not worse

I agree.

But the US is controlling all of those Islamist states.

They are merely puppets.

So it's ridiculous when people bring them up to show the "evils of Islam".

[Rafiq]

Iran is extremely reactionary. Most people aren't religiously radical as the figurehead of a president would have us to believe. They feel they are Persian and oppressed. Sure Saudi Arabia is a cesspool of Capitalism but Iran is just as bad but in a different way. Am I saying this is because of Islam? No but I do not see why you are so supporting. Islam has a brutal and horrible history just like Christianity. Though I am tolerant I definitely see more benefit in people following no religion then one.

I know Iran is extremely Reactionary and Corrupt.

But it doesn't compare to Saudi Arabia.

I know this, because I've been to both.

Iran is very reactionary, fundamentalist, and Nationalist

Saudi Arabia is just Hell on Earth, so horrible, women must wear burqas, walk 7 feet before their husbands, husbands usually have 4 wives, and they cannot drive.

[Rafiq]

Shariati are you going to answer my post asking where these Muslims are? And why they're not joining the forum to state their claims, etc. rather than running off or whatever it is you said they're doing?

I am active on other Muslim Forums, and have been banned from only one for being Marxist.


They would go on the site, type "Islam" on the search button, look at all the comments, and simply leave and go back to their original forum.

[Rafiq]

Strategically you have a point.

A similar argument can be made about drawing white European youths from the Nazis, which is why I don't necessarily oppose socialists participating and intervening in relatively reactionary strikes with anti-immigrant slogans like "British jobs for British workers", as long as socialists keep a clear head themselves and don't take the reactionary position themselves.

But it goes both ways. The danger of "contamination" is always present as well, both for European Nazism and right-wing Islamism.

So what we need to do is while they are radicalizing, show them Socialism.

Show them, that a Leftist unity is much stronger than an Islamist Unity, because Leftists aren't limited by Religion.

[Rafiq]

In this instance I agree with you. Socialists should support the basic rights and dignity of religious people, as long as they are not reactionary and discriminatory, just like we must support the rights of women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities etc. Of course, with religions there is a fundamental difference due to fundamental philosophical disagreements. But politically there is no difference.

Most of the Muslims give equal rights to their Wife, and don't mind homosexuals.

What we must do is weed out the ones who do, and change their minds, telling them that it is not incompatible with their beliefs.

They will be very uncomfortable if you keep trying to make them Atheists.

Only very few will, trust me.

[Patchd]

In this instance I agree with you. Socialists should support the basic rights and dignity of religious people, as long as they are not reactionary and discriminatory, just like we must support the rights of women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities etc. Of course, with religions there is a fundamental difference due to fundamental philosophical disagreements. But politically there is no difference.
As a Marxist, I thought you would agree that we cannot separate the political from the social or the economic. Thus, how can a philosophical position, having real life consequences, not have political repercussions?

[Queercommie Girl]

As a Marxist, I thought you would agree that we cannot separate the political from the social or the economic. Thus, how can a philosophical position, having real life consequences, not have political repercussions?

I didn't say that, which is why I said they are not the same.

However, you do realise that genuine Marxists and socialists must support proletarian democracy (this is the name of my tendency, which I take very seriously), which would include the democratic rights and the freedom of belief of religious workers as well?

Lenin himself was a militant materialist philosophically and he certainly wasn't religious-friendly, but he supported the freedom of belief by religious workers.

This is not something you can impose in a top-down bureaucratic manner from above.

[Black Sheep]

And OP,i've had it with all the 'oh noo, you islamophobe!!!' threads in here.

I personally leave religion away from political discussions (that is, when speaking politically to a person, i do not take account his/her religious views.)

In seperate discussions of course, discussions concerning religion, i treat christians and muslims in the same horrible fashion, exactly because they are christians and muslims.

And the worst version of islam *is* "worse", in a leftist perspective, than the worst version of christianity nowadays.
You can whine and twist around all you want, but the facts can't change and that's the reason that islam needs a different approach from leftists.
You can choose to babysit them, but don't you fucking dare accuse me of being an 'islamophobe',when i treat this brutal misogynistic idealist war-mongering pile of crap in the way it deserves to be treated.

I didn't know that being a commie automatically assumes a certain level of politeness.

As i treat neonazis and rothbardians differently from your average cappie joe and your average cappie joe differently from an a-political person, i will treat Jihad apologists and born again evangelicals differently from the 'jesus loves yah' and 'islam means peace' guys, and the latter ones differently from the once-a-year churchgoer.

In short, treat ideologies with the level of respect they deserve.
Savoir vivre,kindness ,how polite you are while doing it, and how you approach your conversation partner, are another thing,a different and unrelated one.

[Queercommie Girl]

They will be very uncomfortable if you keep trying to make them Atheists.

Only very few will, trust me.


Atheism is not something that can be imposed bureaucratically.

Leninism is firmly materialist, but Lenin supported the freedom of belief of religious workers. In fact, even evangelism was not completely banned within the society in general, it was only banned within the Communist Party, which obviously makes sense, because too much religious influence in the socialist government would shift the state towards a theocracy.

Of course, a secular scientific education is considered to be primary and provided to all citizens of a socialist state, but that's something most non-fundamentalist religious people can agree with.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree.

But the US is controlling all of those Islamist states.

They are merely puppets.

So it's ridiculous when people bring them up to show the "evils of Islam".

Not all theocracies are Islamist ones. Tibetan Lamaism is also a very reactionary theocracy that is actively supported by US imperialism.

Just pointing this out, lest everyone just assume incorrectly that only Islamic states can be theocracies.

[Rafiq]

Of course, a secular scientific education is considered to be primary and provided to all citizens of a socialist state, but that's something most non-fundamentalist religious people can agree with.

Of course.

I fully agree, that the educational System has to be 100% Secular and Scientific.

I think that talks of Religion itself should not be tought at schools, whether it be Anti-Religious talk or Pro-Religious talk.

[Rafiq]

Not all theocracies are Islamist ones. Tibetan Lamaism is also a very reactionary theocracy that is actively supported by US imperialism.

Just pointing this out, lest everyone just assume incorrectly that only Islamic states can be theocracies.

Yes of course. I know they aren't all Islamist.

The US will support anything that is for their interest.

[freepalestine]

I agree.

But the US is controlling all of those Islamist states.

They are merely puppets.

So it's ridiculous when people bring them up to show the "evils of Islam".
yes,its always been like that with the gulf states and saudi.although lack of real democracy has been an ongoing problem for the masses of the middle east and the arab states as a whole ,(most of which are secular regimes).this in my opinion as created the "new" alternative regressive, islamism.religious states in the shape of iran,ksa etc are the antithesis of socialism,and progression.the oppression of religious/ethnic minority communities in those states,such as the ahwaziarabs etc, the shia in ksa are examples of the extreme totalitarianism of religious fundamentalism

[Crux]

His angle of attack is indeed in contradiction of the atheist principle that God does not exist. He is not attacking religion primarily in terms of their socio-economic implications, but solely as if God really exists. That's what you were criticising him for, and that's what I'm saying is contrary to the methods of Historical Materialism. Historical Materialism suggests that actually we shouldn't even give a shit about the abstract theological claims of religions on paper one way or another, the only thing that matters is the concrete implications of religions on the ground in the socio-economic sense.

So I don't know why you are saying "No, no any discussion about "God" isn't that" at all, since actually we are essentially making the same point as far as his arguments go.

"Belief in omnipotent beings" does not directly imply one must be a totalitarian, since there are counter-examples. Many Liberation Theologists believe in God, but many are also genuine socialists at least in the economic sense. However, according to the analysis of Historical Materialism, ultimately the concept of an "omnipotent god" is linked to the emergence of class societies. Now that's a historical fact, since during pre-class primitive communist societies, humans had no concept of a "supreme god". Engels himself said: without an absolutist ruler on earth, there can never be an absolutist ruler in heaven. And when class society fades away under communism, then the socio-economic basis for the non-existent superstructure of an "omnipotent god" would be gone again, which is why Marx predicted religions would gradually fade away in a communist society.

The rise of theism and atheism in ancient China sheds some light on the historical origins of religious belief. The most ancient forms of theistic religions in ancient China were directly linked with the rule of the slave-lord aristocracy class, and were instruments of their class rule.

See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/rise-atheism-ancient-t141770/index.html

The point I was making in the other post is actually just that I think he has had some bad experiences at the personal level with fundamentalist religions before, so even if his approach is wrong, you should show more understanding to him. We should not be too harsh on our comrades, as Lenin said, often it's best to "patiently explain" rather than just throw out f-words or ridiculing people. Of course, that's precisely what CC is not doing towards religious socialists, that's his mistake. It doesn't mean we should repeat his own mistake on him. It's like if a gay ex-fundamentalist Christian seems to bash fundamentalist Christianity a bit excessively, we should understand that to some extent given his background. Aren't you a queer too? Surely you understand what I'm talking about here. Of course, this is purely hypothetical because CC is not gay or queer. But anyhow as Devrim pointed out in his post, even when socialists are showing signs of Islamophobia, which is wrong, it is still better to explain patiently to them why they are wrong, rather than just shout at them or ridicule them.

See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1896532&postcount=32

And to be frank, the only beef I have with CC is his apparent Islamophobia. He obviously denies this himself but I judge people not by what they say, but by what they do. The problem is that he is just falling into using the same kind of racist rhteoric as people like the reactionary EDL. If he were just bashing Big Business funded fundamentalist Christianity in the West and not Islam, I would not even say I disagree with him to be honest.

I think it's time for genuine Marxists to take a firmer materialist position. I am actually somewhat critical of the ideological opportunism shown by many sections of the British left when it comes to religious matters, such as the problems of SWP's Respect co-alition. I sometimes think that no wonder the British left is no way as powerful as the French left, since actually even the capitalist revolution in Britain was not as thorough and radical as the French Revolution. The UK still has a monarchy and a powerful church, and frankly British socialists sometimes cozy up to religions too much.

I actually thought that the CWI was relatively better in this aspect in terms of taking a more orthodox materialist line compared with the SWP and Respect, (I think Respect went as far as explicitly allying with explicitly homophobic Muslims on opportunistic grounds) so don't disappoint me in this.
http://socialistworld.net/eng/2004/10/12islam.html

[Queercommie Girl]

http://socialistworld.net/eng/2004/10/12islam.html

Generally good article.

However, you should consider this point:

Atheism, in the social sense, is also like a "religion". People have just as much right to be completely non-religious as they do being religious. Therefore Lenin's "sensitive policies" towards different "religious cultures" should also apply to atheists.

Just as religious evangelism was not completely banned in society in general, so evangelical materialism should also be allowed. Otherwise it would be unfair because it would be like taking a side between two different "religions".

Therefore religions should not be actively defended from rational and materialistic criticism by communists, unless they become racist in nature.

This is why although in theory I disagree with the approach of atheists like Dawkins, I believe it is wrong for communists to oppose Dawkins explicitly. Dawkins never apologises for capitalism directly. If we shouldn't directly criticise religious evangelism that is not directly reactionary, why should we directly criticise atheist evangelism like Dawkins explicitly? That would clearly be a double standard.

Obviously Marxism itself is a form of materialism and atheism, but if we assume that politically we remain completely fair, then what I said here should apply.

I'm not actually criticising you or the CWI here, just clarifying my position.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm sick and tired of people here Scaring Muslims away from the Socialist Movement.


I have gotten so Many Muslims in the real world to be come Socialists, and if they saw half the stuff these people are posting, they would AUTOMATICALLY become Capitalists and say "screw these Anti-Muslim Commies".

Every time a Muslim is looking into/studying the left, some of you scare them away by Bashing them, there religion, and sometimes there ethnicity.

I think you need all the support you can get, and if a Muslim chooses to be a Leftists, you need to respect that.

Would you rather have a Muslim be a Right-Wing fundamentalist or a Left-Wing moderate?

Choose wisely.
Fuck religion, ese. I'm not anti-islam, I'm just anti-organized religion.

Edit: I am not basing this idea off racial/ethnic anger. I hate christianity, judaism, islam and all religions. It's no different than shooting up, but I think I'd like the feeling of smack more.

[Milk Sheikh]

Atheism, in the social sense, is also like a "religion". People have just as much right to be completely non-religious as they do being religious. Therefore Lenin's "sensitive policies" towards different "religious cultures" should also apply to atheists.


Very good point.:thumbup: This is something that most people miss: they go on and on about 'not hurting religious sentiments' but what about atheists? For centuries upon centuries, they have felt isolated in a largely religious world - they've been at the receiving end all too often. But now that the world is becoming more and more progressive, I believe they too have the right to advocate - perhaps even rigorously - what they think is right.

[Queercommie Girl]

Very good point.:thumbup: This is something that most people miss: they go on and on about 'not hurting religious sentiments' but what about atheists? For centuries upon centuries, they have felt isolated in a largely religious world - they've been at the receiving end all too often. But now that the world is becoming more and more progressive, I believe they too have the right to advocate - perhaps even rigorously - what they think is right.

Yes, as Marxists, we should note that although philosophically Marxism is itself a form of materialism and atheism without a doubt, politically we should support general religious freedom in society as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory, and yes this would also include atheism itself.

However, genuine Marxists must not impose atheism on society in a top-down bureaucratic manner, for that would be like a form of "atheist theocracy". The key of a secular society is to keep politics and religion somewhat separate, unless the said religion becomes exploitative or hinder other peoples' freedoms by being discriminatory.

[Milk Sheikh]

Yes, as Marxists, we should note that although philosophically Marxism is itself a form of materialism and atheism without a doubt, politically we should support general religious freedom in society as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory, and yes this would also include atheism itself.

However, genuine Marxists must not impose atheism on society in a top-down bureaucratic manner, for that would be like a form of "atheist theocracy". The key of a secular society is to keep politics and religion somewhat separate, unless the said religion becomes exploitative or hinder other peoples' freedoms by being discriminatory.

I more or less agree with you. But I also have a deeper concern. Many Hindus and Buddhists, for instance, believe in karma owing to the religious conditioning which has been going on for centuries upon centuries. To make them understand their needs as workers, in effect, to develop class consciousness in them, it'd be necessary to 'expose' how flawed their religion is.

Without doing that, it'd be impossible to convince them that their condition reflects precarious material conditions rather than karma or whatever. So in such cases, we cannot explain Marxism without first comparing it with their religion (since they're conditioned by their religion more than anything).

[Queercommie Girl]

I more or less agree with you. But I also have a deeper concern. Many Hindus and Buddhists, for instance, believe in karma owing to the religious conditioning which has been going on for centuries upon centuries. To make them understand their needs as workers, in effect, to develop class consciousness in them, it'd be necessary to 'expose' how flawed their religion is.

Without doing that, it'd be impossible to convince them that their condition reflects precarious material conditions rather than karma or whatever. So in such cases, we cannot explain Marxism without first comparing it with their religion (since they're conditioned by their religion more than anything).

Why single out the Dharmic religions? I don't think the Abrahamic or the Daoic religions are any better in this regard.

Marxists don't pick sides among the various religions. Certain forms of every particular religion are more progressive relatively speaking than other forms, but no religion is as a whole superior intrinsically to another one, that's reactionary cultural essentialist non-sense.

This is why I explicitly oppose the idea promoted by the British SWP and the Respect co-alition that there is something intrinsically "progressive" about Islam, but conversely the element I oppose the most in Islamophobia is also the racist demonisation of Islam, as if only Muslims can become reactionary violent theocrats, while Christians, Jews and Buddhists are intrinsically more peaceful.

Fuck cultural essentialism. It's a major cause of division among the working class. How do you think Indian workers will feel when European socialist "vanguards" instruct them that Hinduism is somehow intrinsically more reactionary than Christianity is? That's reactionary cultural social-imperialism certainly.