Why is it an "Opposing Ideology?"

[Mutualizm]

I know that religion has been used by unscrupulous men and women in the past to pressure people into obedience. That's horrible. But why is religious belief inherently an "opposing ideology?"

Are you aware that Proudhon wouldn't be allowed to freely post on this forum, as his political views were influenced greatly by the Bible?

I'm not saying that religion should be a major factor in most discussions, and in fact, I'm not a Christian myself. I'm just saying that it should be considered irrelevant to most threads, and only "opposing" to the purposes of this site when it specifically opposes either revolution or leftism.

[Commissar Rykov]

I know that religion has been used by unscrupulous men and women in the past to pressure people into obedience. That's horrible. But why is religious belief inherently an "opposing ideology?"

Are you aware that Proudhon wouldn't be allowed to freely post on this forum, as his political views were influenced greatly by the Bible?

I'm not saying that religion should be a major factor in most discussions, and in fact, I'm not a Christian myself. I'm just saying that it should be considered irrelevant to most threads, and only "opposing" to the purposes of this site when it specifically opposes either revolution or leftism.

Religion was put here so people restricted to the Opposing Views Forum and Standard Users could participate in discussions. Not much more to it than that.

[L.A.P.]

I don't think Proudhon would be able to post freely anyways regardless of religous views, I'm pretty sure market socialists get restricted. Plus, you don't get restricted for being religous as long as you don't preach and remain secular.

[tir1944]

I think that a singificant part of the revolutionary left today is in fact religious,especially in the Muslim world and Latin America.I may be wrong of course.


I'm pretty sure market socialists get restricted.
Now they don't,and shouldn't be.

[Mutualizm]

Religion was put here so people restricted to the Opposing Views Forum and Standard Users could participate in discussions. Not much more to it than that.
That seems reasonable.


I don't think Proudhon would be able to post freely anyways regardless of religous views, I'm pretty sure market socialists get restricted. Plus, you don't get restricted for being religous as long as you don't preach and remain secular.
Market socialists get restricted? That seems a bit excessive. Does this site only allow hard-line Marxists? Would Bakunin be allowed to say what he wanted, even though, upon reading Marx's works, he was able to predict the emersion of oppressive dictatorships?



Now they don't,and shouldn't be.
Oh, good.

[L.A.P.]

Market socialists get restricted? That seems a bit excessive. Does this site only allow hard-line Marxists? Would Bakunin be allowed to say what he wanted, even though, upon reading Marx's works, he was able to predict the emersion of oppressive dictatorships?

You have to at least be a revolutionary socialist to not get restricted so Bakuninists can post. Market socialism is not considered revolutionary as it makes a compromise with private property and capital to be more benevolent, kind of like social democracy.

[Mutualizm]

You have to at least be a revolutionary socialist to not get restricted so Bakuninists can post. Market socialism is not considered revolutionary as it makes a compromise with private property and capital to be more benevolent, kind of like social democracy.

Mutualists support the complete abolition of the state. If that's not revolutionary, I don't know what is.

Beyond this, most (all?) modern mutualists believe that the capitalist class-- that is, the class that contributes only capital, and no actual labor to production-- cannot exist without the coddling and propping up that comes from the state.

[L.A.P.]

Mutualists support the complete abolition of the state. If that's not revolutionary, I don't know what is.

I don't think you really do then. Anarcho-capitalists and national anarchists also want to abolish the state but are incredibly reactionary movements.

[Mutualizm]

I don't think you really do then. Anarcho-capitalists and national anarchists also want to abolish the state but are incredibly reactionary movements.
Well, I know what Merriam-Webster's second definition for revolution is.

a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>


Mutualism can be said to be an attempt at A, B, C, and D. To call oneself a revolutionary, one needn't be an insurrectionist.

[tir1944]

Market socialism is not considered revolutionary as it makes a compromise with private property and capital to be more benevolent, kind of like social democracy.
Listen,i'm against market socialism but i don't think they should be restricted.Let them use arguments.Everything is born out of argumentation and discussion...

[Commissar Rykov]

Listen,i'm against market socialism but i don't think they should be restricted.Let them use arguments.Everything is born out of argumentation and discussion...

They can still argue they just have to do it in OI.

[Nox]

Religion is reactionary, thats why.

Religion has a huge affect on the working classes. Even today, it is still an 'opium of the masses' that distracts workers from class consciousness.

Not to mention the disgusting filth that's contained in the Abrahamic religions (read the Talmud/Torah/Bible/Quran) and Hinduism (caste system).

And to top it all off, it's anti-scientific and causes backwardness. There was a period spanning a few hundred years starting from near the end of the dark ages in which our technology actually regressed significantly.

[Zostrianos]

I have spiritual beliefs myself and I enjoy discussing religion in general, but religion has no place whatsoever in politics. Secularism is absolutely vital, and religion is an individual belief that should in no way influence politics or the laws of a future socialist state.

[Tim Cornelis]

I know that religion has been used by unscrupulous men and women in the past to pressure people into obedience. That's horrible. But why is religious belief inherently an "opposing ideology?"

Are you aware that Proudhon wouldn't be allowed to freely post on this forum, as his political views were influenced greatly by the Bible?

I'm not saying that religion should be a major factor in most discussions, and in fact, I'm not a Christian myself. I'm just saying that it should be considered irrelevant to most threads, and only "opposing" to the purposes of this site when it specifically opposes either revolution or leftism.

Proudhon would probably be restricted for saying "knows enough if she knows enough to mend our shirts and cook us a steak".

EDIT: Market socialists shouldn't be restricted as they advocate collective ownership of productive resources.

[Smyg]

Reading way too much into subforum labeling.

[Commissar Rykov]

Religion is reactionary, thats why.

Religion has a huge affect on the working classes. Even today, it is still an 'opium of the masses' that distracts workers from class consciousness.

Not to mention the disgusting filth that's contained in the Abrahamic religions (read the Talmud/Torah/Bible/Quran) and Hinduism (caste system).

And to top it all off, it's anti-scientific and causes backwardness. There was a period spanning a few hundred years starting from near the end of the dark ages in which our technology actually regressed significantly.
Which had fuck all to do with Religion and everything to do with the collapse of the Roman Empire.:rolleyes: