Religion in a "Communist" Society

[The Guy]

This has been troubling me for some time now. I'm a libertarian communist, one who denounces most of the fundamental Marxist beliefs as well as uses them and crafts them to my own advantage. At the moment I'm currently irreligious (hold not biased opinion towards a religion while not having one at the same time - unlike Atheism which is based upon hatred of other religions) and I'm obviously a commie.

Now my point comes down to the role of religion within a communist society. Personally, my beliefs would lean towards the State itself being irreligious and allowing religion, however, religion disestablishmentarianism is implemented to avoid any unwanted bias and allow people to practice freely amongst themselves. Yet I can't help but find it both contradictory - Marxism, that is - at certain points. This also applies to other communists or anarchists who are currently (hardcore) Atheists:



Freedom of Choice - by disallowing religion or enforcing Atheism into society, does this not then create an unfair bias of oppression amongst a population? I can't help but imagine it would only cause severe problems and lead to further complications in support of the State (or land, for the Anarchists). If the State were to be irreligious and implement disestablishmentarianism, however, would this not then destroy the oppressive barrier? Surely it would allow people to be religious without it becoming overly influential in the political world (I am aware of Shar'ia Law in the Islamic belief).
Marxism: The Religion - it's quite humorous how Marxism could appear to be a religion itself. Its followers read and implement words from a book, they then practice this preaching their way is right and the guy who wrote it has a beard - sound familiar? I'm not saying Marxism is wrong, only I feel the idea should be interpreted differently.

And last but not least: how do you view religion in a communist society?

[Broletariat]

First of all it seems like you're very confused. Atheism is not the hatred of religions, if anything that would be Anti-theism. Communism will not have a State, but a government.

Religion will wither away under Communism seeing as how the material conditions for its existence will have also withered away.

Also, all political ideologies appear as religions so this isn't really a shocking revelation or anything we don't already know.

[Blackscare]

Marxism: The Religion - it's quite humorous how Marxism could appear to be a religion itself. Its followers read and implement words from a book, they then practice this preaching their way is right and the guy who wrote it has a beard - sound familiar?
lolol

So, pretty much political grouping ever is a religion, huh?

Can I ask what you've read on the subject? What does communism mean to you?

[Luisrah]

I thought atheism was the denial of the existence of god, but not necessarily the hatred for religion.

Anti-theist yes, are against religion.

On the point of religion in a communist society. I think it will fade away a lot. You can notice that the more we discover the universe, the less important religion becomes, and in a transition so deep to communism, with huge improvements of culture and science to the masses, and improvementes in science itself, as Man breaks its chains of oppression from whatever you can think of, religion will start to become much smaller.

Of course that I think anyone should be free to think whatever they want, believe in whatever they want. Applying those thoughts and beliefs however, should only be possible if it doesn't endanger other people.

[Lyev]

This is all tied up with as is a large majority of Marx's work, the idea of aufheben, or supersession, when he discusses religion as a product of a very specific social form. Marx's critique is an example of aufheben. Here's Cyril Smith on the famous "opium of the masses" thingy (which is always misinterpreted by those self-important anti-communist liberals):
‘Everybody’ thinks that Marx was saying that religion was dope manufactured by the ruling class to keep the masses happy. The real Marx, however, was concerned with much more weighty problems. Among other things, he was thinking about how an abstract human being could exist. He concludes that one could not. ‘Man is the world of man, state, society’, and the conception of God was a necessary conception in an ‘inverted world’. Once the world was right side up, the idea would not be needed. Meanwhile we should pay attention to it.(http://marxmyths.org/cyril-smith/article2.htm)

And really here gets to the point:
First, let’s say what Marx meant by ‘critique’. It was closely bound up with Hegel’s idea of ‘sublation’ [aufheben]: to negate, and thereby to preserve the inner truth of something. It is similar to Marx’s attitude to religion: it was not a matter of rejecting religious sentiment because it was ‘untrue’, without foundation, and then devising a new religious form. Rather, we have to uncover those aspects of a way of life which gave rise to religion — and then revolutionise those aspects. Religion was ‘the heart of a heartless world’, so the issue was to establish a world with heart. Instead of an illusory solution, we must, in practice, find a real one. (http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/cyril.htm)

[The Guy]

I've tried to reply the best I can.


First of all it seems like you're very confused. Atheism is not the hatred of religions, if anything that would be Anti-theism. Communism will not have a State, but a government.

Religion will wither away under Communism seeing as how the material conditions for its existence will have also withered away.

Also, all political ideologies appear as religions so this isn't really a shocking revelation or anything we don't already know.

Yes, I am confused. I've recently been trying to help a friend who's wanting to follow the communist political belief while he is a Muslim. Does make you question how "fair" you wish to make your society. But you're right - Anti-theism. Most of my friends refer to the term as an opposition to religion whereas Anti-theism covers that one. And I'm fully aware that government exist - of course - only the State is the foundation of that government, the infrastructure.

I fail to see how that is true. How will it make religion wither away? By oppressive Atheist propaganda? Through forcing workers to focus on matters out of their personal beliefs?

Marxism seems quite hypocritical on paper - it having a bearded leader with a book to follow. All are though, yes.


lolol

So, pretty much political grouping ever is a religion, huh?

Can I ask what you've read on the subject? What does communism mean to you?

Well, as I mentioned above, I've recently been helping a Muslim friend to find his way into communism which is extremely difficult yet entirely possible. I believe religion can fully exist and thrive in a communist society - so long as it doesn't contradict itself with overly oppressive Atheist propaganda. Still, I guess every -ism is just as controversial as another.

To me, communism is an ideology which breaks the oppression of capitalism and fascism allowing a free and equal society based upon materialistic ideals which are according to a man's/woman's need. Each and every person is entitled to believe what they wish socially and religiously, although there is a large State influence on the existence and uphold. A little hard to interpret without making silly hand gestures to try and cook up one hell of an explanation. Ideally, it's a people movement by the people; for the people.


I thought atheism was the denial of the existence of god, but not necessarily the hatred for religion.

Anti-theist yes, are against religion.

On the point of religion in a communist society. I think it will fade away a lot. You can notice that the more we discover the universe, the less important religion becomes, and in a transition so deep to communism, with huge improvements of culture and science to the masses, and improvementes in science itself, as Man breaks its chains of oppression from whatever you can think of, religion will start to become much smaller.

Of course that I think anyone should be free to think whatever they want, believe in whatever they want. Applying those thoughts and beliefs however, should only be possible if it doesn't endanger other people.

Thank you for the opinion, and without sounding too ignorant, my replies above might clash with this reply.


This is all tied up with as is a large majority of Marx's work, the idea of aufheben, or supersession, when he discusses religion as a product of a very specific social form. Marx's critique is an example of aufheben. Here's Cyril Smith on the famous "opium of the masses" thingy (which is always misinterpreted by those self-important anti-communist liberals):(http://marxmyths.org/cyril-smith/article2.htm)

And really here gets to the point:(http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/cyril.htm)

Thank you for this! Cleared many points with this little bad boy.

[Savage]

Why the fetish over the beard? Without the state and market as a means of exploitation religion will be only a personal thing, it will not be used to accumulate profit via the spiritual capitalism we see today nor will it be used to gain political power. A quote from Marx that i've always found interesting is in his response to 'The Program and Rules of Bakunin's International Alliance of Socialist Democracy', they stated, ''The Alliance declares itself atheist; it wants abolition of cults, substitution of science for faith and human justice for divine justice.'', to which Marx replied ''As if one could declare by royal decree abolition of faith!''.

[Broletariat]

And I'm fully aware that government exist - of course - only the State is the foundation of that government, the infrastructure.

I'm pretty sure the general conception of the State is as something oppressive that is a type of government, not the other way around.


I fail to see how that is true. How will it make religion wither away? By oppressive Atheist propaganda? Through forcing workers to focus on matters out of their personal beliefs?

If the conditions that cause religion disappear then, religion will have no cause and will too disappear. No propaganda necessary, just hard and fast cause and effect.


Marxism seems quite hypocritical on paper - it having a bearded leader with a book to follow. All are though, yes.
How is it hypocritical?

[Rafiq]

No belief of any sort will be forced upon anyone. you can practice whatever you like as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

[gestalt]

Religion is a symptom of the conditions of material reality. At best it serves as a vehicle for social reform (e.g., liberation theology) and at worst it is a tool for the ruling class to foster false consciousness (e.g., prosperity theology, fundamentalism). However, once consciousness is sufficiently raised and those social relations are destroyed, there will be no need for it and other metaphysical posturing.

On an individual level, atheism (the negation of god) most often precedes other radical, but rational, beliefs (the negation of private property, the state, etc.). Once one is no longer concerned with their individual spiritual wellbeing they are free to be concerned with our collective worldly emancipation.

[Catmatic Leftist]

What would happen if the general atheist population were to try to repress those who practice a religion? Would it be dealt with the same way as if it was the other way around?

[Sixiang]

It seems apparent to me that as we get closer and closer to communism, religions will wither away. I honestly think that organized religions (especially the Abrahamic religions) are incompatible with Marxism. Not that it's impossible to get religious people on our side. I think that if you can show people, regardless of religious affiliation, that capitalism is bad and that socialism is the way to go, then it would be good for the movement overall. Even if I am atheist and anti-theist, I have been able to have some pretty meaningful conversations with some Christians about communism and have gotten them to agree with me that capitalism is bad. I don't really have too much experience with Muslims, so I'll leave that to you.

[craigd89]

I see nothing wrong with being religious... I'm personally agnostic but lean towards more believing there is some kind of higher power.. I'm just not into the whole going to church, worshipping a god, and worrying if i'm going to heaven/hell. Religion should be personal

[EvilRedGuy]

First of all it seems like you're very confused. Atheism is not the hatred of religions, if anything that would be Anti-theism. Communism will not have a State, but a government.

Religion will wither away under Communism seeing as how the material conditions for its existence will have also withered away.

Also, all political ideologies appear as religions so this isn't really a shocking revelation or anything we don't already know.

Isn't the "A" in Atheism short for Anti-theism?

[Sentinel]

Isn't the "A" in Atheism short for Anti-theism?

Nah, it's a greek word and in Greek an 'a' before a word signifies 'no' or 'none'.


The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%82) (atheos), meaning "without god" Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).

I'm an anti-theist and my position is that while Religious individuals should not be persecuted, and while socialists should be careful not to join in with racism-motivated attacks on minorities, we should advocate a scientific worldview, and should actively work against religion by the means of education and scientific debate. Likewise, we must stand for a totally secular society and education system -- in one religion will wither away by itself.

[Across The Street]

We will never witness the complete 'withering away' of religion or religious beliefs, nor would we want to. People are always going to believe what they want to believe, and this should be allowed at the very least. Free expression of personal opinion, as long as it isn't inflicting harm on other people, should be encouraged in all honest visions of a new society.

[NGNM85]

This has been troubling me for some time now. I'm a libertarian communist, one who denounces most of the fundamental Marxist beliefs as well as uses them and crafts them to my own advantage. At the moment I'm currently irreligious (hold not biased opinion towards a religion while not having one at the same time - unlike Atheism which is based upon hatred of other religions) and I'm obviously a commie.

Atheism is not based on the hatred of religion. I do hate religion, but that is not the determinent of being an atheist. Atheism is actually the absense of a belief system, the absense of a specific type of belief system. To be an atheist simply means not accepting extrme claims about the origin of the universe, life after death, etc., without sufficient evidence.

Now my point comes down to the role of religion within a communist society. Personally, my beliefs would lean towards the State itself being irreligious and allowing religion, however, religion disestablishmentarianism is implemented to avoid any unwanted bias and allow people to practice freely amongst themselves. Yet I can't help but find it both contradictory - Marxism, that is - at certain points. This also applies to other communists or anarchists who are currently (hardcore) Atheists:



Freedom of Choice - by disallowing religion or enforcing Atheism into society, does this not then create an unfair bias of oppression amongst a population? I can't help but imagine it would only cause severe problems and lead to further complications in support of the State (or land, for the Anarchists). If the State were to be irreligious and implement disestablishmentarianism, however, would this not then destroy the oppressive barrier? Surely it would allow people to be religious without it becoming overly influential in the political world (I am aware of Shar'ia Law in the Islamic belief).
I'm not sure who's specifically endorsing this, although, I'm sure a number of people around here do. I'm about as staunch a civil libertarian as you could hope to find. As crazy and horrible as religion is, I would never support any attempt to forcibly ban it's practice or the dissemination of religious texts under any circumstances. I would only take the position that government, in whatever form it would take, to whatever extent it would exist, must be secular, but that's hardly radical, we presently have a secular government in the US, today.




Marxism: The Religion - it's quite humorous how Marxism could appear to be a religion itself. Its followers read and implement words from a book, they then practice this preaching their way is right and the guy who wrote it has a beard - sound familiar? I'm not saying Marxism is wrong, only I feel the idea should be interpreted differently.
This is absolutely true. First of all, once you become a (insert name here)-ist you're nine-tenths of the way there, anyhow, let alone the kind of reverence and genuflecting that goes on, here. The comparison with religion is quite valid, as even a casual perusal of this site will attest.


And last but not least: how do you view religion in a communist society?

I'm not a communist, (Or a Marxist.) so you might want to ask someone else.

[Zanthorus]

Oh how absolutely terrible, we actually follow someone else's ideas. Oh wait, so has practically everyone in human history apart from the few people who actually managed to come up with something original (And even those original ideas will usually have been inspired by something that came previously).

Yes, I do follow what that old bearded guy from the 19th century wrote in his books. I also occasionally follow what a few bearded people from the 20th century wrote, and even a couple of non-bearded ones. I don't particularly see why it should bother me, there is nothing inherently 'religious' about following someone else's ideas if you genuinely believe that they were correct (Unless of course the person you follow was a major religious figure).

[#FF0000]

This is absolutely true. First of all, once you become a (insert name here)-ist you're nine-tenths of the way there, anyhow, let alone the kind of reverence and genuflecting that goes on, here. The comparison with religion is quite valid, as even a casual perusal of this site will attest

This can be said of literally every political thing ever. This is not a profound statement. This is dumb stop being dumb.

Anyway yeah religion in a communist society. Religion will p. much be tolerated but don't expect to see any public labor going towards building any churches.

[Rjevan]

I believe religion can fully exist and thrive in a communist society - so long as it doesn't contradict itself with overly oppressive Atheist propaganda.
Since you said this twice, what do you understand to be "oppressive Atheist propaganda"? Stating that religion is irrational nonsense? I consider much of the religious propaganda around to be quite oppressive towards various people.


We will never witness the complete 'withering away' of religion or religious beliefs, nor would we want to.
I would want to, very much. But sadly you're right, it's pretty unlikely that we'll witness it during our lifetime.


Free expression of personal opinion, as long as it isn't inflicting harm on other people, should be encouraged in all honest visions of a new society.
The problem is, as hinted above, that the main religions necessarily (think about the time when their "holy books/sacred texts" were written/"revealed") contain parts about inflicting harm on other people. If somebody wants to create his/her personal patchwork religion, consisting only of love, that's fine. But no matter how liberal you interpret your religion there will be those who interpret it in a different way. Violent fundamentalists and religious hate don't come out of nowhere, the fundament contains calls for violence and hate.

[NGNM85]

Oh how absolutely terrible, we actually follow someone else's ideas.

This is a total red herring.


Oh wait, so has practically everyone in human history apart from the few people who actually managed to come up with something original (And even those original ideas will usually have been inspired by something that came previously).

I like how Voltaire put it; “Originality is nothing but judicious imitation. The most original writers borrowed one from another. The instruction we find in books is like fire. We fetch it from our neighbours, kindle it at home, communicate it to others and it becomes the property of all.” So, again, nobody was arguing otherwise.



Yes, I do follow what that old bearded guy from the 19th century wrote in his books. I also occasionally follow what a few bearded people from the 20th century wrote, and even a couple of non-bearded ones. I don't particularly see why it should bother me, there is nothing inherently 'religious' about following someone else's ideas if you genuinely believe that they were correct (Unless of course the person you follow was a major religious figure).

You keep erecting these strawmen. I, clearly, did not contest either of these things.


This can be said of literally every political thing ever.

No, it can’t.


This is not a profound statement. This is dumb stop being dumb.

Well, since you put it that way…

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

It is important to remove the power structures of organised religion in a revolution lest a church (particularly i highly authoritarian one such as the Catholic Church) attempt to sieze power, however at the same time we should fiercely protect the right to personal and group religious study, discussion, practice and worship as long as there is no oppression. The problem with religion is that although for some people it provides hope and happiness it also opens them to control via their faith, however this should be protected as almost any personality trait or belief can be exploited for control.

[Magón]

http://www.anarchistconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Spanish-Anarchists-shooting-at-Jesus-300x292.GIF

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that it's rather presumptuous to think that agreeing with ideas thought of by others is beneath you. Or is your objection that Marxism is too dogmatic? Because that would be somewhat laughable. Marxism has often had nothing much to do with Marx.

In either case, one could compare just about anything to religion, and it's generally incredibly tenuous. You should follow Marx on this, and only make such comparisons when there is a substantive basis for it. Although one could make the comparison that most opponents of both theism and Marx's views don't know what they're on about.

[#FF0000]

No, it can’t.

What is your definition of religion that Marxism somehow fits into?

[psgchisolm]

It is important to remove the power structures of organised religion in a revolution lest a church (particularly a highly authoritarian one such as the Catholic Church) attempt to sieze power, however at the same time we should fiercely protect the right to personal and group religious study, discussion, practice and worship as long as there is no oppression. The problem with religion is that although for some people it provides hope and happiness it also opens them to control via their faith, however this should be protected as almost any personality trait or belief can be exploited for control.
So you want to regulate the church? You want to protect person and group religious study and worship as long as there is no oppression, but from what I got you want to eliminate the power structures and in a way regulate what actually goes on? To eliminate exploitation. So you want religious freedom, but you don't want the freedom to practice some aspects of religion the way they want to? :confused:

[NGNM85]

I think that it's rather presumptuous to think that agreeing with ideas thought of by others is beneath you. Or is your objection that Marxism is too dogmatic? Because that would be somewhat laughable. Marxism has often had nothing much to do with Marx.

Then it cannot, and should not be called ‘Marxism.’


In either case, one could compare just about anything to religion, and it's generally incredibly tenuous.

No, you can’t compare ‘anything’ to religion. I fail to see how religion is, in any meaningful way, like trout fishing, appendicitis, or dark matter. I mean I could go on and on, but I think it’s pretty clear that this is simply not so.


You should follow Marx on this,

First, don’t hold your breath, second, that’s a sorry excuse for an argument.


and only make such comparisons when there is a substantive basis for it.

I think there is, absolutely, a substantive basis for it, that’s actually why I said it.


Although one could make the comparison that most opponents of both theism and Marx's views don't know what they're on about.

I would be positively thrilled to argue the merits of religion. I will gladly take that challenge, I have no shortage of thoughts on the subject.


What is your definition of religion that Marxism somehow fits into?

Well, what I was saying is in certain cases it fundamentally resembles a religion, not that it necessarily is a religion. There is such a thing as secular dogma. For an example, the cult of National Socialism that swept Germany in the early 20th century has, essentially all of the hallmarks of a religion. We can find plenty of other examples throughout history. The significant factors are; The stridency, the intensity of the belief, the fervor. Also, the totalistic aspect of it, elevating a belief system to the point of something like scripture, like Bible law. Lastly, there is the personality cult aspect, where a figure is not merely praised or admired, but elevated to an, essentially, superhuman status. I think most Marxists probably display at least one of these traits to some degree, but there is some percentage that exemplify all of these traits, and this demographic is well represented on this forum.

[Across The Street]

Rjevan: "Violent fundamentalists and religious hate don't come out of nowhere, the fundament contains calls for violence and hate."



Cite a passage from the bible which backs this up. I'm not as familiar with the Quran, though I've heard it is significantly different from the bible in this regard. Sure, the old testament is full of examples of God inflicting his wrath upon populations, but nowhere in the bible, that I know of anyway, does it endorse violence by believers. There's a lot of stories in the bible, a lot of which aren't pretty, though Christ especially never endorsed violence, with the exception of self-defense.

In my mind, religious violence is like any other violence, committed by men in moments of mental weakness. Anyone who would willingly commit violence simply for belief in an ideal show a weakness that can't be denied. Violence is only necessary when your life, or the life of someone you love is at stake. Violence should only be used in situations of self-defense.

[Blackscare]

Rjevan: "Violent fundamentalists and religious hate don't come out of nowhere, the fundament contains calls for violence and hate."



Cite a passage from the bible which backs this up. I'm not as familiar with the Quran, though I've heard it is significantly different from the bible in this regard. Sure, the old testament is full of examples of God inflicting his wrath upon populations, but nowhere in the bible, that I know of anyway, does it endorse violence by believers. There's a lot of stories in the bible, a lot of which aren't pretty, though Christ especially never endorsed violence, with the exception of self-defense.




Luke 19:27:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
BTW, that was Jesus saying that, not that more wrathful "god" of the OT.


I mean, I really lol'd when you asked for that, this is one tiny example of the many from Christian texts. Abrahamic religion is littered with this vile shit. I like how you add "I don't know about the Quran, blahblahblah" as if it isn't a direct continuation of the same tradition.

Read your own bible.

[Zanthorus]

I like how you add "I don't know about the Quran, blahblahblah" as if it isn't a direct continuation of the same tradition.

Well, it isn't. Not a direct continuation anyway. Muslims believe that the Torah was corrupted, and that for that reason God sent his message again to the prophet Muhammed. Since the Qur'an was taken down in a period of only a few years after his death, it is said to be the uncorrupted word of God. Though it is, admittedly, not exactly a bastion of enlightened thought either.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

So you want to regulate the church? You want to protect person and group religious study and worship as long as there is no oppression, but from what I got you want to eliminate the power structures and in a way regulate what actually goes on? To eliminate exploitation. So you want religious freedom, but you don't want the freedom to practice some aspects of religion the way they want to? :confused:
People get the freedom to practice religion however they want, i am just saying that you have to abolish the church hierarchies in a revolution or you risk ending up in a theocracy, if the hierarchies reform in some way the same way that a state might try and reassert itself post revolution then a non-hierarchical collective should form to protect people within and outside the church from church tyranny. Obviously you can't force people not to do what a priest tells them but you can protect the person they are being told to hurt.