Religion after the revolution.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Many revolutionaries think we should work with religious people against the bourgeoisie and set aside differences on things like rights for oppressed groups and I understand that it is important to not split the working class and make an inclusive working class movement against capitalism but what is supposed to happen to religion after the revolution? How are we to have a classless, democratic, equal society when there is a class of middle men between god and the "ordinary people"? How can we have a society free of oppression when there are institutions with millions of followers saying "Gays are evil and women belong in the kitchen, look it even says so in our book!" Religions are largely responsible for the perpetuation of many bigoted views and are generally resistant to change so how are we supposed to expect it to just wither away during the revolutionary struggle and in the new socialist society? The theory of evolution is 150 years old but religion still pervades the world.

[Tommy4ever]

Quite simply, Comrade, we cannot have a socialist revolution and allow religion to continue to survive.

However, there is no need for fire, destruction and killings. Education and societal pressure are the most proven and successful weapons of atheism.

In countries where people are well educated atheism thrives. In countries where being an atheist is not only not looked down upon but seen as normal atheism thrives.

I have to say the belief held by the early Marxists that religion would merely wither away in the new socialist state as there would be no need for it seems to have a lot of credence.

That said many people continue to turn to religion in their old age as fears about their own mortality become more prominent. But that is a point for another day.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

We should work with religious groups, but we should not set aside our views on freedom for women, homosexuals, and for that matter, religious minorities. As for mythology and metaphysics, the revolution should have a secular/neutral position, or at least not biased in favor of one particular faith. The main focus of the Revolution on Religion I'd argue is the democratization of religious institutions to prevent them from being taken over or influenced by "Class elites," and their constitutionalization, insofar as they will be barred from using the pulpit to argue in favor of legal or social oppression of various classes of people.

On the other hand, I think the anger created by the demolition of Russian churches and Chinese temples by Stalinists show that enforced atheism risks alienating broad swathes of the population. Not to mention, the threat of forced Atheism has been used and misused by authorities telling people that Socialism will destroy their culture. After the revolution, it doesn't matter as long as there are no class differences between various religions, and religious authorities don't use their position to demagogue on behalf of violence or repression against particular minorities or control the education system.

Allowing religion to continue to exist to help people overcome existential problems, death, and cultural issues, or allowing people to personify their fears and anxieties or hopes and dreams in a deity ... there's no problem in this. Allowing religion to dictate social or moral rules for people of other faiths as well as their own? Revolutionaries should have no time for that. As history progresses, hopefully the discrete religions of today will be replaced by general spiritual sects, personal spirituality, and agnosticism, as well as atheism, and this will vary from person to person based on their own existential needs. Insofar as this happens someday, it will be thanks to cultural change over time not forced by a revolution. This will also depend on the culture and the nature of the religion in question .... I could see Buddhism doing very well in a Communist society, and I could see certain very religious areas maintaining a strong sense of faith and religiosity, like huge parts of India or the Middle East, and surely we cannot rule out the possibility of the creation of new religious movements (New Age has replaced Christianity in parts of the "West", and Japan and China have seen some new faiths in the past couple centuries, ranging from dangerous cults to full-fledged spiritual movements).

Another interesting note for all Communists is the historical influence of Christianity (and therefore Judaism) on the formation of the ideology (the Trinitarian Model is something which Marx brought in through Hegel, and made "Materialist" ... this is "Dialectical Materialism"... as such there is a deep ontological commonality between Paul and Marx!!) Even Atheists can get "good ideas" from religions and theology.

[No Ha Muerto]

I tend to see religion mostly as a result of the values of feudalism/capitalism, if we are able to change the superstructure sufficiently to pave the way to socialism, a lot of the reasons for religion will cease to exist.

Needless to say, a struggle against fundamentalist religions of any kind is worthwhile, but I think that the formation of new fundamentalisms will stop if people don't need to rely on it for organization/subsistence will either halt or slow down significantly. If we look at the current fundamentalism that garners most attention in liberal media, islamic fundamentalism, it is clear that it formed as a substitute for a secular Left. If we offer other means of organization, we could go a long way in solving that.

[Crimson Commissar]

I actually think that religion would be more prominent within socialist society. One of the main reasons people turn to Atheism is the great injustice of the world at the moment. Socialism will abolish that injustice, and therefore abolish one of the biggest reasons for atheism's popularity. This is why the socialist state needs to take a strictly anti-theist viewpoint on this matter. An atheistic education, suppression of organised religion, and promotion of atheism within society is necessary to destroy religion.

[Across The Street]

I felt like I should respond to individual posts, but decided against it. Fundamentalism and religious hatred will most likely disappear but I can promise you that spiritual beliefs and religion, as interpreted by individuals and groups of individuals, never will. Atheism and darwinism are bankrupt ideologies. Science cannot now, nor will it ever be able to prove the theory of evolution. I agree that some people turn to atheism* as a means to explain all the aspects of our existence which seem hard to explain or understand, but I don't think a secular left will ever win over the masses of humanity. I'm not being defeatist here, I just firmly believe that no revolution can be achieved without the support of religious groups, and the majority of people on this planet who definitely hold religious views. Times are continually changing, and with that, people inevitably face change within their own lives. Religion and religious and spiritual beliefs have changed drastically since the time of Marx even. If you think that's just going to disappear or become obsolete through propaganda, you're dead wrong, and everything around us confirms that.

[psgchisolm]

I actually think that religion would be more prominent within socialist society. One of the main reasons people turn to Atheism is the great injustice of the world at the moment. Socialism will abolish that injustice, and therefore abolish one of the biggest reasons for atheism's popularity. This is why the socialist state needs to take a strictly anti-theist viewpoint on this matter. An atheistic education, suppression of organised religion, and promotion of atheism within society is necessary to destroy religion.
So much for religious freedom...:thumbdown:

Why not let the workers decide what they want to be w\o state or stateless interference? Instead of imposing some form of religion or non-religion why not leave it alone. Keep a strictly neutral approach. You know like religious tolerance?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Overall, I don't see why religion has to go. Just get rid of the fundamentalism and the hatred and you'll be left with a large group of people who believe they are compelled to spend their lives committing acts of kindness and love.

[Queercommie Girl]

Philosophically I'm an atheist sure, and I'm a militant secularist, who believes in the complete separation of religion and the state.

But frankly I just can't be bothered about militant atheism. Objectively I think religions would probably gradually fade in terms of importance in a socialist society, but I believe in cultural democracy, so as long as it's not anti-socialist or racist/sexist/queerphobic, basically anything goes.

I'm a political Leninist but cultural anarchist. My aim is to create a socialist political system, I don't really care about creating a "socialist culture".

Culturally society would become communist when people are generally culturally free and no longer coerced by any kind of chauvinistic cultural tradition, whatever that is.

[TheGeekySocialist]

religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom. It is used by oppressors to make people feel better about the distress they experience due to being poor and exploited.

found this on a website, sums it up pretty well imo.

I also agree with the previous poster who said that under a Socialist system religion would likely whither away by and large, this is because people would no longer need the "opiate" of religion as they would no longer be poor or exploited.

[TheGeekySocialist]

Overall, I don't see why religion has to go. Just get rid of the fundamentalism and the hatred and you'll be left with a large group of people who believe they are compelled to spend their lives committing acts of kindness and love.

I guess, I dont see why one would need a deity or fictional book to compell you toward those things though, surely Socialism and Humanism are about the same thing, except you dont have the divisive views and beliefs added in, the more I examine religious belief, the more I conclude that it is a bastardasation of many peoples base Humanist and/or Socialist views and values.

[B5C]

There is going to be no way to get rid of religion. We have been using religion for nearly 100,000 years. No way an state can get rid of all religion. What we need to do is to promote secularism and have a strict policy of separation of church and state.

[Tommy4ever]

So much for religious freedom...:thumbdown:

Why not let the workers decide what they want to be w\o state or stateless interference? Instead of imposing some form of religion or non-religion why not leave it alone. Keep a strictly neutral approach. You know like religious tolerance?

The Left should never support total religious freedom. The simple fact is that defeating religion is equally important as defeating capitalism. However, religion can be defeated without the intense violence that is need to bring down capitalism. But it still must be eliminated.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Left should never support total religious freedom. The simple fact is that defeating religion is equally important as defeating capitalism. However, religion can be defeated without the intense violence that is need to bring down capitalism. But it still must be eliminated.

No it's not. There is nothing in orthodox Marxism which suggests this political line.

You are diverting socialist resources to a goal that is no way as important as anti-capitalism itself. Furthermore, you are alienating workers who are religious to various extents.

It's better if you say something like "defeating racism/sexism/queerphobia is equally important as defeating capitalism". Of course, technically, this isn't correct either, because too much focus on anti-discrimination campaigns diverts attention away from class struggle too. But it still beats your abstract militant atheism. At least strategically it would foster worker's unity, not worker's division.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I agree w/ Iseul. Just because many socialists don't see religion as necessary to them or necessary to their own lives, it doesn't mean that they should try to impose this view on others. Not everyone is the same, and people have different personal needs behind their faith. People should not prejudice the personal, cultural, historical, or existential reasons why they deify something, build spiritual art and hold meetings of like minds.

It is true that state religion is anti-socialist. Non-impositive personal spirituality and spiritual communities are fine, however.

[Sosa]

I actually think that religion would be more prominent within socialist society. One of the main reasons people turn to Atheism is the great injustice of the world at the moment. Socialism will abolish that injustice, and therefore abolish one of the biggest reasons for atheism's popularity. This is why the socialist state needs to take a strictly anti-theist viewpoint on this matter. An atheistic education, suppression of organised religion, and promotion of atheism within society is necessary to destroy religion.

I don't think that is factual. What have you to back this up?

[Sosa]

I felt like I should respond to individual posts, but decided against it. Fundamentalism and religious hatred will most likely disappear but I can promise you that spiritual beliefs and religion, as interpreted by individuals and groups of individuals, never will. Atheism and darwinism are bankrupt ideologies. Science cannot now, nor will it ever be able to prove the theory of evolution. I agree that some people turn to atheism* as a means to explain all the aspects of our existence which seem hard to explain or understand, but I don't think a secular left will ever win over the masses of humanity. I'm not being defeatist here, I just firmly believe that no revolution can be achieved without the support of religious groups, and the majority of people on this planet who definitely hold religious views. Times are continually changing, and with that, people inevitably face change within their own lives. Religion and religious and spiritual beliefs have changed drastically since the time of Marx even. If you think that's just going to disappear or become obsolete through propaganda, you're dead wrong, and everything around us confirms that.

1. Atheism is not an ideology
2. Evolution is a scientific fact and has been proven, everyday more and more evidence keeps piling up.
3. People turn to religion because of aspects of our existence that seem unexplainable, not the other way around as you have it


That said. I believe that religious institutions have no place in the public domain, that is, these institutions cannot have the power to influence society. Individuals should be free to practice whatever belief they wish as long as it does no harm to others, no matter how bat shit crazy it is.

Education is what will eventually make religious belief irrelevant and unnecessary. But regardless, individuals should be allowed to believe and practice as they see fit. By trying to suppress an individuals spirituality you probably just exacerbate it and make it underground.

[Crimson Commissar]

So much for religious freedom...:thumbdown:

Why not let the workers decide what they want to be w\o state or stateless interference? Instead of imposing some form of religion or non-religion why not leave it alone. Keep a strictly neutral approach. You know like religious tolerance?
Fuck religious tolerance. It's religion itself which has no tolerance. I don't know why no one understands this. Religion demands complete obedience to it's ideals. You either follow religion exactly or you're condemned to hell for all eternity. And you expect Atheists to be tolerant to THAT? That's unbelievably hypocritical. The simple fact is that religion is wrong. Both factually wrong and morally wrong. It is completely opposed to the free will and liberty of humanity. It's just wrong in every possible way.

[Queercommie Girl]

Fuck religious tolerance. It's religion itself which has no tolerance. I don't know why no one understands this. Religion demands complete obedience to it's ideals. You either follow religion exactly or you're condemned to hell for all eternity. And you expect Atheists to be tolerant to THAT? That's unbelievably hypocritical. The simple fact is that religion is wrong. Both factually wrong and morally wrong. It is completely opposed to the free will and liberty of humanity. It's just wrong in every possible way.

I have some sympathies for your stance actually, but your militant atheism is too abstract, and strategically will only alienate religious workers.

Many workers are religious to various extents, unless you don't believe in worker's democracy (which means you are not a genuine Marxist), you cannot simply just ignore this fact.

[Crimson Commissar]

I have some sympathies for your stance actually, but your militant atheism is too abstract, and strategically will only alienate religious workers.

Many workers are religious to various extents, unless you don't believe in worker's democracy (which means you are not a genuine Marxist), you cannot simply just ignore this fact.
Only because workers historically have had far worse education than those in the middle and ruling classes. There's also the fact that outside of the first world, the vast majority of people, especially the working class, are extremely religious and some would probably even be in favour of a fundamentalist theocracy. We shouldn't support religion just because of this fact. We need to convince working class people to throw off the chains of not just capitalist oppression, but ALL oppression, including religious.

[piet11111]

The use of public assets for religious purposes should be voted on. (think community buildings and newspapers/radio)

Children should be thoroughly educated on materialism and the scientific method and also should be informed on religions many flaws.

Religious parents that hold religious values that are harmful to their children (refusal of vaccinations and stuff like blood transfusions or religious oppression like the taliban not allowing women to go to school) should have their parental rights removed and the children relocated.

These measures would probably be enough to drive religion out of public life and into their private homes where it belongs.

[psgchisolm]

Only because workers historically have had far worse education than those in the middle and ruling classes. There's also the fact that outside of the first world, the vast majority of people, especially the working class, are extremely religious and some would probably even be in favour of a fundamentalist theocracy. We shouldn't support religion just because of this fact. We need to convince working class people to throw off the chains of not just capitalist oppression, but ALL oppression, including religious.

That's why we must debate them and show them why a theocracy is BAD. No one is saying support religion, but don't directly attack it. Anyway I think the individual people should have the decision about what they want to spend their Sundays doing. Ex. Keep the fuck out of the individual persons life.

[Jose Gracchus]

Religion and all organized forms of superstition and pseudoscience will hopefully substantially wither away after a successful social revolution, just like social hierarchy, bureaucratic formations in production and society, and ultimately the state.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fuck religious tolerance. It's religion itself which has no tolerance. I don't know why no one understands this. Religion demands complete obedience to it's ideals. You either follow religion exactly or you're condemned to hell for all eternity.

Yeah, uh, not all religions are as absolutist as Abrahamic religions. Really, why do people think all religions call for intolerance and metaphysical absolutism simply because some religions happen to do so? For instance, consider this classically Indian response to the diversity of religious sects in ancient India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellora) Or the story of Ramakrishna, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna) a modern reformer of Hindu thought and practice. In this regard, I think many aspects of Indian culture point towards a Socialist spirituality, but that's just me.

[Robocommie]

Yeah, uh, not all religions are as absolutist as Abrahamic religions. Really, why do people think all religions call for intolerance and metaphysical absolutism simply because some religions happen to do so?

Not all followers of Abrahamic religions are as absolutist and intolerant as Abrahamic fundamentalists either. Crimson Commissar makes broad sweeping generalizations based entirely on his personal suppositions, and then claims it to be objectively true. Clearly, the work of a "rational" and scientific mind.

I have a book about world religions that my parents were given as a gift by the Catholic priest that married them. On the inside cover he wrote, "[Robocommie's parents], now that you have begun your journey together, I thought you might enjoy learning about other paths to God. Love, [the priest]"

It struck me how he worded that. Other paths to God. He didn't write "other religions" or "the lies of heathens and unbelievers." He wrote "other paths to God" implying that they were just as valid as his own path. And this was a man who had been a Catholic priest for many years. He was one of the kinder, gentler people I've ever known. Throughout my life I've met religious folks, priests, ministers and laypeople, who were both tolerant and open to other people's thoughts on what they saw as the great unknowable mysteries of life. I've spent many hours over the years, having very enjoyable conversations with people of every faith, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, about the meaning of life and what it's all about.

But all of that, I guess, is not nearly as important as Crimson Commissar's feelings on the matter, his deeply held personal convictions that religious people are WRONG and need to be made to SEE that they are wrong.

[TheGeekySocialist]

The Left should never support total religious freedom. The simple fact is that defeating religion is equally important as defeating capitalism. However, religion can be defeated without the intense violence that is need to bring down capitalism. But it still must be eliminated.

religion's influence and power is largely derived from Capitalism, so by defeating the latter the former is severly crippled or defeated anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

religion's influence and power is largely derived from Capitalism, so by defeating the latter the former is severly crippled or defeated anyway.

Why should we waste so much time, energy and effort on abstract militant atheism? Why should we care so much about "rationality floating in thin air"?

Why not divert resources to actual class struggle and even fighting for basic civil rights (e.g. against racism/sexism/queerphobia)?

I can understand the need for militant secularism (separation of religion and state) and militant anti-fundamentalism (so that one religion doesn't discriminate those of other religions), but frankly abstract militant atheism is not really a Marxist task.

[hatzel]

Why should we waste so much time, energy and effort on abstract militant atheism? Why should we care so much about "rationality floating in thin air"?

Because there was a rabbi who once said...


In every person, even secular, there is an unknown spark that demands unification with the Creator. When it awakens, it sometimes awakens one to know the Creator, or deny Him, which is the same. In other words, denying G-d comes also from that spark, for without it, one would have no feelings about G-d whatsoever. Instead people would live without any thoughts of the Creator, good or bad.

Okay, okay, I admit that's a totally biased viewpoint :laugh: Still, it's fun...

[Hexen]

I personally think that Religion should be left alone after the revolution and perhaps we shall test if Marx's theory that religion will wither away is correct or not in a scientific study as we shall see. If it isn't then there is no reason to oppress it but I do suspect that religion will be changed (or should I say adapted) in some way over time.


Not to mention, the threat of forced Atheism has been used and misused by authorities telling people that Socialism will destroy their culture.

Sadly most of the attitude displayed in this thread kinda reinforces this and it's not helping.

[ZeroNowhere]

In every person, even secular, there is an unknown spark that demands unification with the Creator. When it awakens, it sometimes awakens one to know the Creator, or deny Him, which is the same. In other words, denying G-d comes also from that spark, for without it, one would have no feelings about G-d whatsoever. Instead people would live without any thoughts of the Creator, good or bad.I'm a theological non-cognitivist. Ha.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Many revolutionaries think we should work with religious people against the bourgeoisie and set aside differences on things like rights for oppressed groups and I understand that it is important to not split the working class and make an inclusive working class movement against capitalism but what is supposed to happen to religion after the revolution? How are we to have a classless, democratic, equal society when there is a class of middle men between god and the "ordinary people"? How can we have a society free of oppression when there are institutions with millions of followers saying "Gays are evil and women belong in the kitchen, look it even says so in our book!" Religions are largely responsible for the perpetuation of many bigoted views and are generally resistant to change so how are we supposed to expect it to just wither away during the revolutionary struggle and in the new socialist society? The theory of evolution is 150 years old but religion still pervades the world.
And your username is the name of a Mexica deity, interesting... Religion in my view is a personal thing and I don't believe its a political issue until someone brings it to my doorstep, then I get pissed. If people don't push there religion on me, then it doesn't bother me.

[Quetzalcoatl]

And your username is the name of a Mexica deity, interesting... Religion in my view is a personal thing and I don't believe its a political issue until someone brings it to my doorstep, then I get pissed. If people don't push there religion on me, then it doesn't bother me.

Actually it was just a random name I chose. I've heard stories of bigots changing their views during struggle so I am hopeful that this will happen to a large degree during a revolution. For example during the UK miners strike some LGBT activists joined the miners on the picket line. At first the miners were largely antagonistic but after some time the miners changed their views on the LGBT folk, their bigotry dissipated and they said that as they had supported them in their struggle they would in turn support them in their struggles. Another example is of a foul racist and scab who blamed immigrants for societies problems but when the management came down hard on the workers he decided to strike with the rest of the workers and led them out to the picket line and linked arms with muslim co-workers. However these examples were in a multi cultural society where the battles against racism and homophobia had been ongoing for decades so the same may not happen in societies where pretty much everyone holds the same bigoted views.

As for the need to crush religion with atheism, I don't think it necessarily needs to happen. As long as religious fundamentalism is kept at bay then that is what really matters. But then again there is the hierarchical nature of organised religion which goes against everything socialism stands for, so I dunno.

[Black Sheep]

For a socialist revolution to occur, a breakthrough of materialism in peoples' conciousness needs to occur.
If religion is spared from that breakthrough, then sth fishy is going on - i find it difficult to believe that a person tears down all the lies and capitalist zeitgeist and stil (s)he clings to bronze age bullshit.
If logic is applied to both the socioeconomic and religious worldview, then an atheist socialist society emerges.

[gorillafuck]

The simple fact is that defeating religion is equally important as defeating capitalism.Not at all!

Being uncompromising in secularism is important. Militant atheism is not important.

[yobbos1]

The problem of religion is that it is a (false) form of authority based not on the welfare of the state and/or the people, but on a doctrine designed to perpetuate only itself and the positions of it's "leaders". As a materialist one cannot be in favor of an institution that accomplishes absolutely nothing in the material world. Organized religion further depletes resources from society that could be used in infinitely more productive ways.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The problem of religion is that it is a (false) form of authority based not on the welfare of the state and/or the people, but on a doctrine designed to perpetuate only itself and the positions of it's "leaders". As a materialist one cannot be in favor of an institution that accomplishes absolutely nothing in the material world. Organized religion further depletes resources from society that could be used in infinitely more productive ways.

Why do some naive Marxists always return to this simplistic reduction?

[yobbos1]

Why do some naive Marxists always return to this simplistic reduction?

Simple is not necessarily simplistic. The only thing of any real value belonging to the "great" religions is the architecture. So we keep the fine buildings and move on. How can we possibly have an educated rational population when a large percentage of them still believe in magic books and flying horses and talking snakes. It is nonsense and it's usefulness in controlling the masses is long gone. Now it has become nothing more than a breeding ground of ignorance and hostility.

[Hexen]

Simple is not necessarily simplistic. The only thing of any real value belonging to the "great" religions is the architecture. So we keep the fine buildings and move on. How can we possibly have an educated rational population when a large percentage of them still believe in magic books and flying horses and talking snakes. It is nonsense and it's usefulness in controlling the masses is long gone. Now it has become nothing more than a breeding ground of ignorance and hostility.

I think the problem can be boiled down to is that your now using Biopower/Governmentality (coined by Foucault) dictating what is real and possible and what is not which is a another form of oppression.

[Sixiang]

Many revolutionaries think we should work with religious people against the bourgeoisie and set aside differences on things like rights for oppressed groups and I understand that it is important to not split the working class and make an inclusive working class movement against capitalism but what is supposed to happen to religion after the revolution?
I think that it religion will pretty much wither away as humanity advances further in the field of science and as rational and logical thinking permeates throughout society. Thus, religion will wither away after the revolution.


How are we to have a classless, democratic, equal society when there is a class of middle men between god and the "ordinary people"?
Exactly. We can't have an equal society with religion.


How can we have a society free of oppression when there are institutions with millions of followers saying "Gays are evil and women belong in the kitchen, look it even says so in our book!"
Exactly. We can't have a society free of oppression with that going on.


Religions are largely responsible for the perpetuation of many bigoted views and are generally resistant to change so how are we supposed to expect it to just wither away during the revolutionary struggle and in the new socialist society?
By teaching and showing that communism, atheism, and anti-theism go hand in hand and that it is better for all of society to abandon the superstitions of religion. The only way this can be done is if it is understood that the party is officially atheist. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. can join us so long as they know that and understand that the party will not adopt any religious outlook.


The theory of evolution is 150 years old but religion still pervades the world.
Unfortunately so.

[Queercommie Girl]

Exactly. We can't have an equal society with religion.

Exactly. We can't have a society free of oppression with that going on.


Well, many religious schools don't believe in the existence of "middle men" between ordinary people and "god" (or whatever is their ultimate belief) at all, and many don't hold any sexist or queerphobic beliefs.

On the other hand, just because one is an anti-theist, doesn't mean one is progressive at all. Nazism was supposedly completely based on atheistic and scientific ideas, and even today many reactionaries use social darwinist theories to justify sexism, queerphobia, the existence of classes, and even racism.

So from a socialist perspective, I'd much much rather ally with genuinely progressive religious socialists than right-wing reactionary anti-theists.

Marxism itself is definitely an atheist, materialist and humanist philosophy, sure, but it is not "fundamentalist atheist". Militant atheism in the purely abstract sense is not a Marxist task.

[Red_Struggle]

I don't see the need to resort to violence towards believers if they don't expouse fundamentalism or whatever. Sure, I think it's silly to believe in Gods, goddesses, demons, angels, but we need to be careful not to alienate potential comrades.

I don't care about someone's religion so long as they focus on class struggle and have something to contribute towards socialism.

[Sixiang]

So from a socialist perspective, I'd much much rather ally with genuinely progressive religious socialists than right-wing reactionary anti-theists.
So would I. I am willing to work with religious socialists, but I am of the belief that religion will wither away as we get closer and closer to communism.

[Zav]

Religion is a cancer, like Capitalism, and it must be eradicated during the Revolution, however spiritualities will probably remain. There is a difference between 'religion' and 'faith' that is often smoothed over. Religion is organized and dogmatic, whereas faith is the belief in something without evidence and is usually applied to some form of spirituality. That is not something that is necessarily a problem, though it is usually irrational.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think that it religion will pretty much wither away as humanity advances further in the field of science and as rational and logical thinking permeates throughout society. Thus, religion will wither away after the revolution.


Religion can be a perfectly rational way of seeing the world. Internal contradiction is not logical, but there is nothing about a particular religion which is internally contradictory. Religion is based on principles which are often not based on objectively empirical evidence, but that makes them non-empirical, not illogical. As a good example, Buddhism can be a very logical religion (Buddha himself states that if you take his ideas to their logical conclusion, you discover the deeper truth that cycles of literal rebirth, etc, are also illusionary constructions).



By teaching and showing that communism, atheism, and anti-theism go hand in hand and that it is better for all of society to abandon the superstitions of religion. The only way this can be done is if it is understood that the party is officially atheist. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. can join us so long as they know that and understand that the party will not adopt any religious outlook.

I agree with the idea that the superstitions of religion should be abandoned. This much is clear. However, there will be many cases where different religions and the Socialist system will agree from their deeper principles.


I think people often miss the various social utilities of religion, specifically to answer fundamental existentialist issues or to build a social-spiritual cultural narrative, or to connect the values of one generation with that of the generation before. These issues won't change.


Iseul-I prefer to think of Marx's Communism as non-theistic, which differs from atheism in that non-theism is merely ignoring the issue of the theistic altogether. But overall i tend to agree with your views on religion. It makes no sense for the State to think there is a utility in forcing people to change their ontological beliefs, and it also makes no sense for a state to assume a single absolute metaphysics to be imperially imposed on all of its people, as if all religious people would want to be atheist if they "only knew better" :P

[hatzel]

all religious people would want to be atheist if they "only knew better" :P

Unfortunately I believe this is increasingly becoming the official party line for a lot of leftists :unsure:

There's an old joke somewhere, of a scientist explaining all these intricate scientific principles, and how everything on Earth fits together and can be explained by entirely scientific empirical evidence. All about hurricanes, with air pressure and currents, the rotation of the Earth, everything. And about evolution, the Big Bang, everything to explain how the universe came into being and continued to operate. To which the response is "oh! What a glorious world G-d has made!" :lol: There might be something to learn from in there, I dunno...

On a somewhat unrelated note, I was watching a show about the Big Bang and stuff recently. The show came from some lab out in Canada where they seem to do nothing but discuss the synthesis of the universe. Of course they all agreed that the Big Bang wasn't the start of the universe, that this creatio ex nihilo never happened. That is to say, that there was something before the Big Bang, even though many of us have been lead to believe that the Big Bang was the start of the universe. Anyway, they asked all these different scientists for their opinion, and each one gave a basic overview of their ideas. They had presumably done a lot of maths or whatever to work it out, as it was a lab, but most of that wasn't recounted on the show :lol:

Anyway, I remember one of them forwarding a suggestion which seemed to fit in pretty well with the Hindu idea of cyclically created and destroyed universes. Another one said that before the Big Bang there was only energy, and that this energy was converted into a material substance in...some kind of situation, I don't remember the necessary conditions for energy to convert into matter, but they proved the viability in some NASA lab, I believe, and converted a laser beam into physical electrons or something. I forget the details, I'm not a scientist! Anyway, Jewish teachings have, for hundreds if not thousands of years, explained Creation by claiming that raw light, the ohr ein sof, was effectively formed, through stages, into the material world. I doubt any religious Jew who accepts these Kabbalistic teachings is going to lay down his siddur if science proves that the universe was created by converting energy to matter about 13 or so billion years ago :laugh: In fact, they'll say that good ol' Isaac ben Samuel did some maths based on the Bible about 750 years ago, around the same time claims of light > matter creation were empirically found in verifiable religious texts, and he claimed that the universe was created 15,340,500,000 years ago. Far from a little bit of knowledge disproving their religion and turning them to atheism, this little bit of knowledge is just confirming what they have been saying for hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years, and may even go towards strengthening their faith.

I don't think there's much worth in this suggestion that teaching people about science or something will necessarily turn them away from their religion, which seems to be an axiomatic suggestion for a whole load of atheists. It's flawed, of course, but it's pretty patronising, too, to suggest that people only cling to religion because they have no understanding of the world and how it works...:mellow:

[Mr. Contradiction]

Maybe it's just my lack of being sufficiently indoctrinated in the hatred of faith and idealism, but I literally do not understand the potency of the usual anti-religious arguments (it's oppressive, possibility of fundamentalism, Dawkins-esque arguments from implausibility, historically poor relationship with the advance of science). I understand the perspective but I don't know why I should accept them.

Since we are in the learning thread, if anyone can guide me to a highly persuasive and reasonable guide to anti-religious thinking, I am, as always, willing to change my mind. But coming from where I come from ideologically, if your revolution burns down the church with the same enthusiasm with which it burns down the national bank, I will be on the side fighting to bring you down.

[Quentin]

Religion cannot be allowed to survive.

It is simply another dividing factor amongst us.

[Crimson Commissar]

The fact is that religion has NO right to exist, it is RIDICULOUS and I am constantly amazed at how this far into our species' development, it is still the belief system held by the vast majority of human beings. Many atheists would agree with me here. Communism is about human progress. Even if you're not an anti-theist, surely you must agree, that eventually organised religion HAS to go if we are to progress as a species. It's simply illogical to believe that in 500 years time when we will hopefully be at a level of technological and scientific advancement we couldn't even imagine today, that religion should STILL exist and STILL be a major belief system held by THOUSANDS of people.

[Thirsty Crow]

The fact is that religion has NO right to exist, it is RIDICULOUS and I am constantly amazed at how this far into our species' development, it is still the belief system held by the vast majority of human beings. Many atheists would agree with me here. Communism is about human progress. Even if you're not an anti-theist, surely you must agree, that eventually organised religion HAS to go if we are to progress as a species. It's simply illogical to believe that in 500 years time when we will hopefully be at a level of technological and scientific advancement we couldn't even imagine today, that religion should STILL exist and STILL be a major belief system held by THOUSANDS of people.
Religion has no right to exist?
What liberal bullshit.

[Crimson Commissar]

Religion has no right to exist?
What liberal bullshit.
Why DOES it have any right to exist?

[Queercommie Girl]

Religion cannot be allowed to survive.

It is simply another dividing factor amongst us.

But in the concrete empirical sense what you are saying here is itself a divisive factor, since many workers are religious to various extents.

How do you plan to "forcefully de-religionise" them?

[Queercommie Girl]

The fact is that religion has NO right to exist, it is RIDICULOUS and I am constantly amazed at how this far into our species' development, it is still the belief system held by the vast majority of human beings. Many atheists would agree with me here. Communism is about human progress. Even if you're not an anti-theist, surely you must agree, that eventually organised religion HAS to go if we are to progress as a species. It's simply illogical to believe that in 500 years time when we will hopefully be at a level of technological and scientific advancement we couldn't even imagine today, that religion should STILL exist and STILL be a major belief system held by THOUSANDS of people.

It might indeed go gradually in the future, but that's certainly not something that can be forced, because such a method is completely contrary to the principle of worker's democracy.

Many workers are religious to various extents. So how exactly do you plan to "forcefully de-religionise" them? What if they explicitly and actively struggle for their religious rights? Would you start suppressing them like a Stalinist bureaucrat?

[Queercommie Girl]

Why DOES it have any right to exist?

"Rights" are never purely abstract.

In this case religions have a right to exist simply because many workers are religious, and we have no choice but to respect worker's democracy, otherwise we are counter-revolutionary.

Any strand of "socialism" that does not respect genuine worker's democracy (not just economic democracy, but also political, social and cultural democracy) is counter-revolutionary.

[Dimmu]

Religion should just be made to have no influence.. I am against burning of churches etc..

[Queercommie Girl]

Religion should just be made to have no influence.. I am against burning of churches etc..

It's not about "protecting religions" in the abstract, it's about protecting workers who are religious people.

Worker's democracy: economic (control of the means of production), political (direct democracy), social (racial and gender equality, freedom of sexuality), cultural (cultural internationalism and religious freedom), must be unconditionally supported.

But of course I support both militant secularism (separation of religion and politics) and militant anti-fundamentalism (so that one religion doesn't discriminate against others).

[Crimson Commissar]

"Rights" are never purely abstract.

In this case religions have a right to exist simply because many workers are religious, and we have no choice but to respect worker's democracy, otherwise we are counter-revolutionary.

Any strand of "socialism" that does not respect genuine worker's democracy (not just economic democracy, but also political, social and cultural democracy) is counter-revolutionary and must be destroyed.
Let them keep their faith. But that shouldn't stop us from actively working to suppress religion. Notice, I said RELIGION, not religious PEOPLE.

[Robocommie]

Let them keep their faith. But that shouldn't stop us from actively working to suppress religion. Notice, I said RELIGION, not religious PEOPLE.

There is no difference between those things. Or don't you think that your efforts to suppress religion will be seen as oppression by religious workers? This is literally like saying that you intend to suppress a given ethnic culture without actually supressing the members of that ethnic culture.

You are asserting that somehow religious practices and religious beliefs exist as an isolated concept independent of the physical, material realities of religious believers and religious communities. You are NOT a materialist.

You are, however, a paternalist who apparently sees religious workers as children who need to be fostered to an enlightened perspective; that is to say, YOUR perspective.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is no difference between those things. Or don't you think that your efforts to suppress religion will be seen as oppression by religious workers? This is literally like saying that you intend to suppress a given ethnic culture without actually supressing the members of that ethnic culture.

You are asserting that somehow religious practices and religious beliefs exist as an isolated concept independent of the physical, material realities of religious believers and religious communities. You are NOT a materialist.

You are, however, a paternalist who apparently sees religious workers as children who need to be fostered to an enlightened perspective; that is to say, YOUR perspective.

I generally agree. But I think it is important to keep 3 things in mind:

1) We should support militant secularism. (Completely separation of religion and politics) In fact, only in a truly secular society can genuine religious freedom be protected;

2) We should support militant anti-fundamentalism. (So that one religion doesn't discriminate against and demonise other religions and faiths) Only this can guarantee cultural internationalism, which every socialist should believe in;

3) Marxism itself is an atheist, materialist and humanist tradition, and objectively we should expect religions to decrease in importance in a socialist/communist society.

[Zanthorus]

I don't think there is much evidence that Marx was an atheist, and some good evidence that he wasn't (Engels too). 'Marxism' is probably another story. Either way, the negation of nonsense is also nonsense.

[ZeroNowhere]

Worker's democracy: economic (control of the means of production), political (direct democracy), social (racial and gender equality, freedom of sexuality), cultural (cultural internationalism and religious freedom)Most of that isn't democracy. Democracy is head-counting devoid of class content. It's not necessarily reactionary, although democracy as a principle is reactionary. Democracy is not 'freedom of sexuality', nor is freedom of sexuality democracy, or even necessarily democratic.

[Raúl Duke]

Religion after the revolution.There are many ideas of what will happen to religion after revolution and to be honest we cannot predict accurately nor will it be the same everywhere.

Personally, I imagine that the new socialist government, no matter what its form is, will be strictly secular yet for the most part will not be "anti-religion" per se. However, under a socialist framework, religion might have "less benefits" than in the past. Since property is own by the public I doubt any new religious centers would be constructed or if they did it would be non-denominational. Religious proselytizing might be kept at a minimum if the people decide they don't want religious solicitors or public preachers in their area, "disturbing the peace," etc. Church work may or may not be considered actual work. Finally, there will be no millionaires supporting religious causes or institutions. Whatever the case, religion's influence may decrease significantly.

However, religious persons and beliefs themselves will probably not be attacked or persecuted. In schools however, you certainly will not see any of this "let's teach creationism" crap under socialism.

Sure there are those who talk about actively eradicating religion and/or the importance of spreading atheism (I don't see an importance, statistically there's a significant organic increase in non-religiosity across many nations) but I don't see what this has to do with the original premises of socialism or anarchism; those ideas are just impractical/unnecessary excesses added on. Sure, we want to live in a secular society; one that is probably even more secular than now. But I certainly don't want to live in a society where there's a socialist brigade, much less an anarchist brigade, telling people to renounce religion, shoving atheism down people's throats, and who knows what else.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Most of that isn't democracy. Democracy is head-counting devoid of class content. It's not necessarily reactionary, although democracy as a principle is reactionary. Democracy is not 'freedom of sexuality', nor is freedom of sexuality democracy, or even necessarily democratic.

Why is democracy as a principle reactionary?

[Quetzalcoatl]

Since property is own by the public I doubt any new religious centers would be constructed or if they did it would be non-denominational.

In an area where the majority of people are Christians do you not think that it is likely that they would build a church for their use?


However, religious persons and beliefs themselves will probably not be attacked or persecuted. In schools however, you certainly will not see any of this "let's teach creationism" crap under socialism.

Likewise, the educational facilities would be run by those who use them and their parents, so in an area where the majority are creationists I think it would be likely that creationism would be taught in schools.