The question of religion

[ComradeAV]

Do you believe that a socialist state should be run on athiesm or just secularism? What are your thoughts? What do you think about freedom of religion?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

The official state religion would be atheism. However, unless a religion is counterrevolutionary, I don't see why we can't just let it be. Organized religions (i.e. The Catholic Church) would probably be disbanded because they tend to be organized top-down...

[graymouser]

Religion should be tolerated, but not allowed to function as a mask for counter-revolution. Churches that make themselves a bastion for fascists and other elements who want to overthrow the gains of the working class, should be smashed. The rest should have freedom to worship, although they shouldn't have tax exempt status or any other special protections. The state should be rigidly secularist, and the party should propagandize for atheism, but it shouldn't be elevated to a "state religion."

[Aurorus Ruber]

I always understood the general theory was that religion would dissipate on its own under socialism once the alienation and hardship of capitalism have come to an end. The famous Marx quote describes religion as opium, but also as the "heart in a heartless world", a source of meaning and hope in an ugly world beyond our control. The socialists intend to imbue the world with the "heart" missing in capitalism so that we don't need religious beliefs to sustain us. That said, the radical left has generally taken a negative view of religion because it so often justifies the existing state of affairs and discourages people from taking action to improve their lot.

In my estimation, though, the abolition of religion is really more complicated than most of us assume. When you really examine the concept, you find that it contains a wide variety of phenomena that don't necessarily have much in common. We consider Christianity, Buddhism, and Raëlism religions but atheism, Stoicism, and dialectic materialism philosophies. One could reasonably ask what makes Buddhism a religion but Stoicism a philosophy. To a large extent, religion also involves a lot of cultural elements that can exist quite independently of the mythological or scriptural basis. Many people identify with their religion because they feel connected to the culture. They like the art and architecture, consider the rituals important rites of passage, and enjoy the community built around it.

[Sixiang]

Do you believe that a socialist state should be run on athiesm or just secularism?
I think that the state should support Atheism as an official ideology and that Atheism should be taught in the schools along with explanations and the history of religions. I don't think the state should just be nondescript secular because eventually some problems will arise with it. Atheism should be explained in history just Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.


What are your thoughts? What do you think about freedom of religion?
I think that religion itself will just die out over time as we move closer and closer to communism. I think it's only a matter of time, really. As we excel in the natural sciences, we will discover a lot more about the universe to explain things and religion will probably seem like a bunch of hooey (which I already think anyway, but whatever).

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not a militant anti-theist/religionist but I'm a militant secularist. I oppose all forms of theocracy and believe in the firm separation of religion and politics.

But I also support the democratic right of free belief. Marxist is an atheist philosophical tradition, but not an "atheist theocracy".

If fundamentalist groups (of any religion) try to interfere in local or national politics in any way, then this should of course be firmly opposed, but not the entire religion itself.

If fundamentalist groups (of any religion) culturally promote certain reactionary ideas, such as racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, or say things which are fundamentally anti-socialist, but do not actually interfere in political or civil society, then we can't actually completely ban them politically just for this. But the socialist government should actively and publicly criticise these reactionary views through the media.

[hatzel]

I don't think the socialist state should be run on atheism or secularism. In fact, I don't think the socialist state should be run at all. But that's just because I'm one of those annoying types who doesn't see any role for a socialist state, perhaps because I didn't read enough Marx or Rousseau or Hobbes or whoever else it was who was supposed to be foisting freedom on us all with their absolute, undivided, super-mega-badass sovereignty...

That said, even if we are going to go into all this stuff, if you're going to consider the state an integral part of socialism, and that it's going to be the infallible representation of the people, of the general will, some dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever, then really it comes down to two choices. Either you think the Robespierres of this world were right, in which case you decide for yourself what you want the state to be and to represent, and force that onto the people, in which case we'll have totalitarianism (and I won't be making any suggestion of how totalitarianism should best be run, on atheism, secularism or anything else, sorry), or you take the actual socialist option and let the people decide, and let the state accurately represent the general will of said people, and if the people decide they want a theocracy, then I'm sorry, but they'll be getting a theocracy, and there's nothing you can do about it without abandoning any last semblance of this so called 'workers' state' actually having anything to do with the workers, rather than just the arbitrary will of some new nominally socialist elite...

[Impulse97]

I don't think Atheism should be the state religion because it infringes on basic liberties of the people. Not only that, but having something that is the polar opposite of religion as the state faith is an oxymoron.

People can believe anything they want as long as they don't try to force it on me or anyone who doesn't want it. Also, I don't think you can simply do away with some parts of organized religion like the RC hierarchy. It has to be educated out of the people. If you storm in and destroy something so sacred to so many your going to have backlash. Possibly, strong enough to start a counter revolution or severely undermine a brand new government.

We can't expect all of this to happen over night or without snags. We've gotta take it slow and ensure that we can get rid of it without the possibility of negative repercussions.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Raúl Duke]

Do you believe that a socialist state should be run on athiesm or just secularism? What are your thoughts? What do you think about freedom of religion? Strict secularism, no state-enforced "atheism" or whatever.

Freedom of religion, in its most basic sense, is mostly an extension of "freedom of thought." We're free to think/believe whatever we want...there's no way to stop people from thinking or believing whatever.

But "freedom of religion" entails many things, and some of these things will probably not be allowed in some degree. Prosetlyzing will possibly be restricted/prohibited.

[Magón]

As long as they don't try and persuade others to join their click, I won't persuade people to join mine. State Atheism is as dumb as State (insert Theist belief here). People can believe in whatever they want, just as long as they don't organize in a way that forces their beliefs down others throats. (Atheist or Theist alike.) If we're not free to believe and think like we want, then we're never really free when it comes to free thinking.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think the socialist state should be run on atheism or secularism. In fact, I don't think the socialist state should be run at all. But that's just because I'm one of those annoying types who doesn't see any role for a socialist state, perhaps because I didn't read enough Marx or Rousseau or Hobbes or whoever else it was who was supposed to be foisting freedom on us all with their absolute, undivided, super-mega-badass sovereignty...

That said, even if we are going to go into all this stuff, if you're going to consider the state an integral part of socialism, and that it's going to be the infallible representation of the people, of the general will, some dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever, then really it comes down to two choices. Either you think the Robespierres of this world were right, in which case you decide for yourself what you want the state to be and to represent, and force that onto the people, in which case we'll have totalitarianism (and I won't be making any suggestion of how totalitarianism should best be run, on atheism, secularism or anything else, sorry), or you take the actual socialist option and let the people decide, and let the state accurately represent the general will of said people, and if the people decide they want a theocracy, then I'm sorry, but they'll be getting a theocracy, and there's nothing you can do about it without abandoning any last semblance of this so called 'workers' state' actually having anything to do with the workers, rather than just the arbitrary will of some new nominally socialist elite...

Leninists believe in democratic centralism, both democracy and centralism, not just democracy. And actually socialism isn't just mob-rule, there are certain basic principles to be followed.

A question for you: since queer people are a minority in the population, if 90% of workers literally decide that we should exterminate all the queer people in the world, does this mean, according to your principle of "democracy", that queer people should be exterminated?

Democracy does not equal to "tyranny of the majority". The worker's state has the responsibility to defend the rights of all communities, not just a particular community. It has the duty to defend all minorities, not just the "moral majority", whatever it is.

Why must a state be secularised? It is not to limit religious freedom. Precisely the opposite: only a truly secularised state can actually truly protect religious freedom. You say it's ok to have a theocracy. So let me ask you: whose theocracy is it? There are dozens of religions in our world. Genuine socialism must be culturally internationalist or culturally pluralist, all religions and cultures are intrinsically equal, if there is a Jewish theocracy, say, how can the democratic rights of other religions like Islam and Buddhism be protected at all?

Iran today is an Islamic theocracy. Do you really believe that the rights of non-Islamic religions are properly protected in Iran?

Your idea of "socialist democracy" sounds more like a social darwinian style rough jungle, where the strong has the "free right" to prey on the weak, the majority has the "free right" to tyrannise the minority, the privileged has the "free right" to dominate the disadvantaged. We need a socialist state because the state, as the executive will of the collective universal working class, has the responsibility to protect the rights of all people, and not just the majority, whatever that happens to be.

[Tommy4ever]

Socialism and religion are incompatible. Whilst religion shall of course exist in the early days of a socialist society it must be clamped down on as quickly as possible. Education tends to be the greatest liberator from superstition, so this should be the main tool for eliminating religion's insidious influence on society.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think Atheism should be the state religion because it infringes on basic liberties of the people. Not only that, but having something that is the polar opposite of religion as the state faith is an oxymoron.

People can believe anything they want as long as they don't try to force it on me or anyone who doesn't want it. Also, I don't think you can simply do away with some parts of organized religion like the RC hierarchy. It has to be educated out of the people. If you storm in and destroy something so sacred to so many your going to have backlash. Possibly, strong enough to start a counter revolution or severely undermine a brand new government.

We can't expect all of this to happen over night or without snags. We've gotta take it slow and ensure that we can get rid of it without the possibility of negative repercussions.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

What would happen if a particular religion actively discriminates and persecutes against other people?

For instance, some Islamist groups literally believe that all queer people should be exterminated. And for them this is not just a belief, but a plan of action. How would the socialist state respond to this? Let queer people fend for themselves?

Religions cannot be allowed to be discriminatory or reactionary in the political or civil sense. If it's just a private belief then that's different. A person can have anti-socialist beliefs, but if he creates an anti-socialist political party then that's illegal; a person can have homophobic views, but if he creates an organisation which literally plans to kill all queer people then that's illegal too. But hell, this is something even bourgeois democrats understand, and I thought socialists should have a more advanced type of democracy, not a more backward one.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think Atheism should be the state religion because it infringes on basic liberties of the people. Not only that, but having something that is the polar opposite of religion as the state faith is an oxymoron.


Depends on what you mean by "state religion". Marxism is based on scientific and historical materialism, and that's what Marxists believe.

But of course the freedom of religion is a basic democratic right, just like the freedom of sexuality is.

[Ocean Seal]

The state should not legislate for or against any religion. The state should be strictly secular, and education should be likewise. Let the people choose, if they are bright enough to overthrow capitalism, which is something that they not a vanguard party, not a great leader, do, then they must be in charge of their own destinies.

[Queercommie Girl]

The state should not legislate for or against any religion. The state should be strictly secular, and education should be likewise. Let the people choose, if they are bright enough to overthrow capitalism, which is something that they not a vanguard party, not a great leader, do, then they must be in charge of their own destinies.

Capitalism can never be overthrown anyway without a genuinely vanguardist party. Spontaneous mass movements by themselves will never overthrow capitalism. That's something I can bet my very life on.

The fact that the vanguard is more advanced than the masses does not imply that it is superior to the masses. The fact that one receives help from another does not take away his/her command of his/her own destiny.

It's funny how some Americans think, such an ultra-individualistic cowboy mentality, must do everything by oneself, never rely on other people.

We Chinese, on the other hand, have a fundamentally collectivist mentality. All people fundamentally rely on each other.

[Ocean Seal]

Capitalism can never be overthrown anyway without a genuinely vanguardist party. Spontaneous mass movements by themselves will never overthrow capitalism. That's something I can bet my very life on.

The fact that the vanguard is more advanced than the masses does not imply that it is superior to the masses. The fact that one receives help from another does not take away his/her command of his/her own destiny.

It's funny how some Americans think, such an ultra-individualistic cowboy mentality, must do everything by oneself, never rely on other people.

We Chinese, on the other hand, have a fundamentally collectivist mentality. All people fundamentally rely on each other.
But the people are the ones responsible for the real change. The vanguard merely exists because the conditions for revolution, dictated by the will of the people are ready. A vanguard doesn't do any good when it isn't backed by the people.

[Crimson Commissar]

The state should not legislate for or against any religion. The state should be strictly secular, and education should be likewise. Let the people choose, if they are bright enough to overthrow capitalism, which is something that they not a vanguard party, not a great leader, do, then they must be in charge of their own destinies.
Why should we tolerate ignorance in a socialist state? Ignorance is what keeps capitalism alive, and it's what keeps religion alive. Any true revolutionary movement should be radically opposed to religion and should work to destroy it.

It's also pretty dumb to think that the average citizen of the west will make the decision to overthrow capitalism by themselves, when we are all raised from birth to believe that capitalism is "free and democratic" meaning that very few people will choose to go against these beliefs.

[Queercommie Girl]

But the people are the ones responsible for the real change. The vanguard merely exists because the conditions for revolution, dictated by the will of the people are ready. A vanguard doesn't do any good when it isn't backed by the people.

It's semantics. It really depends on what you mean.

But I don't agree that a Marxist-Leninist system has no intrinsic character and merely flows whichever way the winds of the "people" may blow in. That sounds more like anarchist-style mob-rule to me.

Just hypothetically,

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally support fascism, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support fascism too?

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally support an Islamic theocracy, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support Islamic theocracy?

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally oppress women, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support the oppression of women too?

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally exterminate all queer people, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support the extermination of all queer people?

Suppose 75% of the people democratically decides to send all Chinese people to the concentration camps, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support sending all Chinese people to the concentration camps?

You might say these things would never happen, but it doesn't matter, I'm just asking a philosophically hypothetical set of questions.

If you are saying that there is no objective right or wrong in politics at all, and it is absolutely up to what the people may decide one way or another, or like what the ancient Daoist mystics in China used to say: "The Sage has no mind of his own, his mind is simply whatever the people's mind is". Then no I don't agree with this. The Marxist-Leninist vanguard is not such a Daoist Sage.

That is to say, what is "progressive" and what is "reactionary" has an objective character, independent of how the people may decide.

[Ocean Seal]

Why should we tolerate ignorance in a socialist state? Ignorance is what keeps capitalism alive, and it's what keeps religion alive. Any true revolutionary movement should be radically opposed to religion and should work to destroy it.

It's also pretty dumb to think that the average citizen of the west will make the decision to overthrow capitalism by themselves, when we are all raised from birth to believe that capitalism is "free and democratic" meaning that very few people will choose to go against these beliefs.


Every Russian was raised to believe that the Tsar was the best thing since sliced bread. King and Country were the tenets before the German Revolution. I'm sure that Robespierre learned that the King of France had "divine right". We were raised from birth and indoctrinated with the idea that capitalism was based around how hard you worked, and that it was just, and that we were free. That didn't stop us from noticing that something was flawed. The average citizen of the west will make the conditions for revolution. What can a couple enlightened socialists do against bourgeois rule without the support of the people? We need to make the people aware of what is wrong with capitalism, and with that we've just armed the greatest army in the world against the bourgeoisie.

A sane bourgeois leader does not fear us. An insane bourgeois leader does not fear the people.

Also you do not fight "ignorance" with ignorance. The state isn't there to hold the hand of the people in their journey away from religion. Any true revolutionary knows that the strength of any "true revolutionary" movement flows from the people. They are the ones who brought forth change. They are more than welcome to be atheists, but if they choose not to be so be it; they have their reasons. I don't pretend to understand every person, because each person is different and is entitled to follow whatever religion suits their liking.


It's semantics. It really depends on what you mean.

But I don't agree that a Marxist-Leninist system has no intrinsic character and merely flows whichever way the winds of the "people" may blow in. That sounds more like anarchist-style mob-rule to me.

Just hypothetically,

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally support fascism, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support fascism too?

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally support an Islamic theocracy, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support Islamic theocracy?

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally oppress women, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support the oppression of women too?

Suppose 90% of the people democratically decides to literally exterminate all queer people, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support the extermination of all queer people?

Suppose 75% of the people democratically decides to send all Chinese people to the concentration camps, does that mean Marxist-Leninists should support sending all Chinese people to the concentration camps?

You might say these things would never happen, but it doesn't matter, I'm just asking a philosophically hypothetical set of questions.

If you are saying that there is no objective right or wrong in politics at all, and it is absolutely up to what the people may decide one way or another, or like what the ancient Daoist mystics in China used to say: "The Sage has no mind of his own, his mind is simply whatever the people's mind is". Then no I don't agree with this. The Marxist-Leninist vanguard is not such a Daoist Sage.

That is to say, what is "progressive" and what is "reactionary" has an objective character, independent of how the people may decide.

Those choices are not personal choices, they are choices which interfere with the lives of others. If someone wants to sacrifice their own child, they should be in jail, if someone wants to read the bible they should be allowed to. If someone discriminates against others we should but an immediate stop to it. I should also point out that those things won't happen under socialism. Because the agenda that will be pushed forward will be an inclusive and progressive one. And ultimately if these hypothetical statements were true we probably wouldn't be able to do anything about them, considering we would probably be overthrown, but then again they wouldn't happen.

[Queercommie Girl]

Also you do not fight "ignorance" with ignorance. The state isn't there to hold the hand of the people in their journey away from religion. Any true revolutionary knows that the strength of any "true revolutionary" movement flows from the people. They are the ones who brought forth change. They are more than welcome to be atheists, but if they choose not to be so be it; they have their reasons. I don't pretend to understand every person, because each person is different and is entitled to follow whatever religion suits their liking.

I agree with your point about the "freedom of belief" being a fundamental democratic right, but you do realise that atheism is objectively more progressive than religionism?

As I said, Marxism-Leninism is not just a system of "radical democracy", it has an objectively progressive character.

[Cowboy Killer]

religion on a personal level is ok, but as far as using it for the bases of the ethics of a society...well then thats when it becomes a problem

[Queercommie Girl]

Those choices are not personal choices, they are choices which interfere with the lives of others. If someone wants to sacrifice their own child, they should be in jail, if someone wants to read the bible they should be allowed to. If someone discriminates against others we should but an immediate stop to it. I should also point out that those things won't happen under socialism. Because the agenda that will be pushed forward will be an inclusive and progressive one. And ultimately if these hypothetical statements were true we probably wouldn't be able to do anything about them, considering we would probably be overthrown, but then again they wouldn't happen.

Actually technically if that's just a private belief and nothing more, we can't send people to jail for that. (Yes, not even for that) People can't be punished for "thought crime". The freedom of thought is absolute. People must be absolutely free to think whatever they wish, and yes I do mean absolutely, including the most evil kinds of thoughts.

We can only punish people when it becomes more than a private thought, but actually becomes a plan for action in the political and civil sense.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Atheism is not a religion.

Therefor, the official state religion should read: none.

[hatzel]

Your idea of "socialist democracy" sounds more like a social darwinian style rough jungle, where the strong has the "free right" to prey on the weak, the majority has the "free right" to tyrannise the minority, the privileged has the "free right" to dominate the disadvantaged. We need a socialist state because the state, as the executive will of the collective universal working class, has the responsibility to protect the rights of all people, and not just the majority, whatever that happens to be.

I'll just point out that my idea of a 'socialist democracy' is...well, I did point out that I don't have any crying call for a state, so I don't have some idea of democracy or anything else dictating how this state I have no interest in would be run. It's all much of a muchness to me. However, you're actually addressing the issue yourself, you're just not noticing it (because I admit I didn't specifically say what I was talking about, I forgot to drop that in, sorry).


The point is that if we're saying, as we should, that 'socialist democracy' should be this progressive thing, no mob-rule, secular, all this, then there's the obvious point that any state which does not match these credentials isn't socialist, ergo there can't be a socialist theocracy. Or, perhaps we could call it socialist by the vaguest definition, but not Marxist(-Leninist), which is really what we're talking about here. From that, we can assume that it must still rely on what the people want. Thus, if the people want theocracy, or fascism, or anything else, then that must be what they would get. The idea would be that, whilst educating people and spreading this desire for a socialist state, one should also spread these ideas of secularism and blah-de-blah. If there were some supposedly socialist revolution, yet the people demanded theocracy, that should surely ring alarm bells that it was a somewhat premature revolution, if the revolution was intended to establish a Marxist state, and should not be classed as a socialist revolution. That's the issue I'm getting at, that one can't just paper over the cracks in a premature revolution by foisting this whole socialist system on an unwitting public who don't want it. Not that theocracy should be accepted as a part of Marxism, just because the people want it, but that if the people want it, then it's not a Marxist workers' state or whatever. It's either a non-Marxist workers' state or it's a Marxist dictatorship. Thus, if one is hell-bent on setting up a state according to whatever list of criteria, one must be certain that these criteria match up with the will of the people before the revolution, rather than just hoping it will all fall into place afterwards. Though still I'm not ML and can't really bring myself to give extensive advice on how this 'dictatorship of the proletariat' should operate...

[Hoplite]

Do you believe that a socialist state should be run on athiesm or just secularism? What are your thoughts? What do you think about freedom of religion?
Religion and state have no business mixing nor does one have any business interfering with one or the other.

Religion is not inherently counter to the goals of supporting the people. It's religious leaders who can bend and twist religion to justify almost anything. I think it's more important to encourage a healthy religious atmosphere that doesn't feed into extremists and other manipulators.

[psgchisolm]

Why not just keep away from having a state religion in the first place. I think there should be a religion class in which all religions are taught with a non-discriminatory basis. Depending on what you consider an "hierarchy" you can be forcing your views down on someone. If w\e religion wants a hierarchy, as long as it isn't counterrevolutionary and discriminatory I see why there can't be a hierarchy.

[Harigh]

I seem to have a different view from many people on here. I've seen a lot of the state propagandizing atheism, but I don't think that should be done. While I do believe the state should be run on secularism, I don't think we should try to convert the people. I think people should be taught the simple facts, presented the inconsistencies in all religions, taught scientific knowledge, and the choice should be up to them. It's always drawn my ire to see major religions try to convert others and shove their religion down peoples throats. I just wouldn't want to stoop to that level.

[hatzel]

I seem to have a different view from many people on here. I've seen a lot of the state propagandizing atheism, but I don't think that should be done. While I do believe the state should be run on secularism, I don't think we should try to convert the people. I think people should be taught the simple facts, presented the inconsistencies in all religions, taught scientific knowledge, and the choice should be up to them. It's always drawn my ire to see major religions try to convert others and shove their religion down peoples throats. I just wouldn't want to stoop to that level.

Isn't that exactly what everybody's been saying on this thread, or am I somehow mistaken...? :confused:

[Harigh]

Isn't that exactly what everybody's been saying on this thread, or am I somehow mistaken...? :confused:

Not everybody. I missed a few posts the first time around, as I was nodding in and out of sleep. I just reread the thread, and I apparently missed all the wrong ones. Sorry about that.

[Queercommie Girl]

I seem to have a different view from many people on here. I've seen a lot of the state propagandizing atheism, but I don't think that should be done. While I do believe the state should be run on secularism, I don't think we should try to convert the people. I think people should be taught the simple facts, presented the inconsistencies in all religions, taught scientific knowledge, and the choice should be up to them. It's always drawn my ire to see major religions try to convert others and shove their religion down peoples throats. I just wouldn't want to stoop to that level.


The state probably shouldn't evangelise atheism officially, but the state should promote progressive religious ideas that are non-reactionary and non-discriminatory.

E.g. We cannot just "tolerate" homophobic religious views. That's a completely reactionary and irresponsible position to take. While homophobic views by themselves are not illegal, homophobic organisations in the political and civil sense must be made illegal, and yes the state should officially promote non-homophobic interpretations of religion. But this is clearly not anti-religion at all, unless one takes the reactionary position that a particular religion is fundamentally homophobic. (Personally, I don't believe any religion is intrinsically homophobic)

[Queercommie Girl]

I'll just point out that my idea of a 'socialist democracy' is...well, I did point out that I don't have any crying call for a state, so I don't have some idea of democracy or anything else dictating how this state I have no interest in would be run. It's all much of a muchness to me. However, you're actually addressing the issue yourself, you're just not noticing it (because I admit I didn't specifically say what I was talking about, I forgot to drop that in, sorry).


The "state" is no more than a collective organisation of the working class that seeks to protect the basic economic and democratic rights of all workers, regardless of background.



The point is that if we're saying, as we should, that 'socialist democracy' should be this progressive thing, no mob-rule, secular, all this, then there's the obvious point that any state which does not match these credentials isn't socialist, ergo there can't be a socialist theocracy.
Your point is completely abstract. My main concern isn't whether or not there can be a "socialist theocracy", whatever that means, my main concern is this how the hell do you plan to protect MINORITY RIGHTS within a theocratic system?

Why don't you enlighten me? Because you don't even seem to understand the concept of MINORITY RIGHTS. Your idea of "democracy" is just the tyranny of the majority.

Please enlighten me, how exactly are the rights of Jews properly protected in an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia? :rolleyes:



Or, perhaps we could call it socialist by the vaguest definition, but not Marxist(-Leninist), which is really what we're talking about here. From that, we can assume that it must still rely on what the people want. Thus, if the people want theocracy, or fascism, or anything else, then that must be what they would get.
Who is the "people"? Are you saying absolutely 100% of the people would agree with "fascism" or "theocracy"? What happens to the few people that don't agree, send them to be burned on a cross, or send them to the concentration camps? :rolleyes:

Do you even grasp the principle of universal human rights for all workers, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, culture or sexuality?

Are you telling me that it is ok for your "socialist democracy" to go against the principle of "universal human rights"?

As a Marxist-Leninist who explicitly believes in party vanguardism, I can tell you very clearly, Marxism-Leninism isn't just "radical democracy". There are times when the most revolutionary and progressive thing to do would be to utilise a revolutionary army to violently crush a "democratic" uprising.

No, we don't just blindly do whatever the "people" say.

The Chinese Daoist mystics used to say: The Sage has no mind of his own, his mind is simply what the people's mind is. The vanguard party is NOT a Daoist sage.

People have freedom as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of other people. Jesus, have you never heard of this basic principle?

[Harigh]

The state probably shouldn't evangelise atheism officially, but the state should promote progressive religious ideas that are non-reactionary and non-discriminatory.

E.g. We cannot just "tolerate" homophobic religious views. That's a completely reactionary and irresponsible position to take. While homophobic views by themselves are not illegal, homophobic organisations in the political and civil sense must be made illegal, and yes the state should officially promote non-homophobic interpretations of religion. But this is clearly not anti-religion at all, unless one takes the reactionary position that a particular religion is fundamentally homophobic. (Personally, I don't believe any religion is intrinsically homophobic)


I do agree on that point. While worship should be allowed, true equality is a core part of the system. Discrimination from the religions goes against the principles of it and should not be allowed, not merely because it defeats the purpose of the state, but because it's wrong in the first place. I personally think even democratic societies should outlaw discriminatory organizations and protests. I wish I never had to see a homophobic protest again.

[hatzel]

Your point is completely abstract. My main concern isn't whether or not there can be a "socialist theocracy", whatever that means, my main concern is this how the hell do you plan to protect MINORITY RIGHTS within a theocratic system?

I have never advocated theocracy. In fact, I explicitly stated that there can be no such thing as a 'socialist theocracy', so why do I now have to have a plan for how it would operate, as a socialist? I...really don't understand this request for me to leap to the defense of theocracy, any more than we would expect anybody on this forum to defend fascism and explain their plans for how a fascist system should best be run :confused:


Why don't you enlighten me? Because you don't even seem to understand the concept of MINORITY RIGHTS. Your idea of "democracy" is just the tyranny of the majority.
Aren't 'tyranny of the majority' and 'mob-rule' effectively synonymous? As this was a response to a direct quote of mine in which I clearly stated that mob-rule and socialism cannot co-exist, I don't see how you're actually responding to my words, in which case there is probably little point in quoting them at all...

I have overtly condemned the tyranny of the minority, this is true, but this isn't some kind of binary thing, whereby every system must be tyrannical, the only choice being that between tyranny of the majority on one hand, and tyranny of the minority on the other. We're all perfectly aware - and lets not pretend otherwise - that there exist non-tyrannical options.


Who is the "people"? Are you saying absolutely 100% of the people would agree with "fascism" or "theocracy"? What happens to the few people that don't agree, send them to be burned on a cross, or send them to the concentration camps? :rolleyes:

Once again, you can answer the question as well as I can, as I don't advocate a fascist or theocratic regime, so have no plans about what to do with the dissenters. In fact, as somebody who advocates the establishment of a transitional state, you are probably better equipped than I, with a host of ideas about how to deal with counter-revolutionary voices - ideas which could presumably be modified to suit fascist or theocratic ends. Particularly considering you seem to be deeply offended by and opposed to my initial suggestion that socialism cannot be foisted on an anti-socialist majority. That is to say, my condemnation of a socialist tyranny of the minority, as mentioned above. Considering you seem to have no problem with imposing socialism over a 90% fascist populace (hypothetically speaking, as this has been what I have been arguing against, the point which you would have been hotly debating since, if you were actually addressing what I've said), you must have some ideas knocking about of how exactly to deal with said situation in the most suitable socialist way. This isn't actually the thread to discuss that, though...



Come to think of it, I can't even be bothered to continue down this post. Little if any of it makes any reference to what I've said, much of it even contradicts it, so why should I bother responding? I'm outty!