Something for Antitheists: Marxism-Reichism

[Babeufist]

I think Antitheists could be interested in German-based anti-theist group called Marxist-Reichist Initiative and Alliance Against Conformity. The leader of the group led Eric Hoevels combines both Marxism-Leninism and Reichian psychoanalysis - in his theory the sexual liberation is equally important as the social liberation, and the principal enemy is a religion.
More information: http://www.bund-gegen-anpassung.com/en/index.htm
In Germany the group makes some controversy http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/17/17793/1.html

[Revolutionair]

'Reichism'?


whilst we, the Alliance against Conformity, advocate birth control

??

[Anarpest]

I'm not sure that any Marxists would hold that the 'principal enemy is religion,' I'm not sure if that would even make sense.

Maybe I should found Marxism-Bakuninism, which is Marxism, except anarchist.
Now guess why those in power and those who spread catchwords do not, of course, like this item [birth control] on our agenda at all. ...China...?

Still, from what they say on that website, they only sound like a usual, if vague, socialist grouping with a strange fetish for birth control. The new content of this Marxism-Reichism doesn't really come across.

[Grenzer]

Marxism-Reichism? ...the fuck?

Sounds like National Bolshevism.

[Veovis]

Marxism-Reichism? ...the fuck?

Sounds like National Bolshevism.

I think "Reichism" comes from a person's last name in this case and isn't related to the German Reich.

Anyway, I'd argue that religion isn't the principal enemy, and it doesn't have to be an enemy at all, but when paired with capitalism simply becomes another tool for the dominant class to hold onto power and divide working people.

[Luís Henrique]

Marxism-Reichism? ...the fuck?

Sounds like National Bolshevism.

Perhaps taking an actual look at the subject of the conversation would spare you from appearing as someone who gives uninformed opinions?

Luís Henrique

[Anarpest]

Marxism-Reichism? ...the fuck?

Sounds like National Bolshevism.

There's always one.

[Neoprime]

I'm not sure that any Marxists would hold that the 'principal enemy is religion,' I'm not sure if that would even make sense.

Maybe I should found Marxism-Bakuninism, which is Marxism, except anarchist. ...China...?

Still, from what they say on that website, they only sound like a usual, if vague, socialist grouping with a strange fetish for birth control. The new content of this Marxism-Reichism doesn't really come across.

I hold Religious/Spiritual Morality an enemy to Marxism.

[Neoprime]

Like everything about them except maybe the birth control.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Religion is the main enemy of materialism. Marxism revolves around the materialist worldview. Thus, all religion is the enemy of Marxism.

That goes without saying that religion is not the the main thing to overcome. Class struggle and the liberation of the proletariat come first.

[[email protected]]

Wilhelm Reich was a Neo-Freudian libertarian psychoanalyst who believed sexual repression led to Fascism, had his own system, and somewhat hilariously, in orgones.

Notably, he fooled Einstein, whose assistant pointed out a methodological error. Much of R's psychoanalysis later inspired Foucault and Deleuze.

[Le Libérer]

Like everything about them except maybe the birth control.
What do you have against birth control?

[Luís Henrique]

What do you have against birth control?

I can't speak for Neoprime, of course; but while I am very much in favour of birth control, I do dislike the way they politicise it.

Luís Henrique

[RedChechen]

"In Memoriam Saddam Hussein", I stopped reading when I saw this ridiculousness.

[Art Vandelay]

Religion is the 'opium of the masses' it is not the primary issue at hand, but rather a by product of a sick world.

[redblood_blackflag]

Religion is the main enemy of materialism. Marxism revolves around the materialist worldview. Thus, all religion is the enemy of Marxism.

That goes without saying that religion is not the the main thing to overcome. Class struggle and the liberation of the proletariat come first.

What do you mean by "materialist world view" ?
How do you reconcile materialism with the belief in social class? if that is what you mean. . .

[Art Vandelay]

What do you mean by "materialist world view" ?
How do you reconcile materialism with the belief in social class? if that is what you mean. . .

The person you are quoting is banned. Also no one 'believes' in the existence of social classes, it is an objective fact. A fact which is no way, shape, or form, irreconcilable with the materialist paradigm.

[Astarte]

Religion is the 'opium of the masses' it is not the primary issue at hand, but rather a by product of a sick world.

Most pre-Marxian forms of popular rebellion/revolution actually had heterodox spirituality at their core... just saying.

[Luís Henrique]

Yeach, they now praise Saddam Hussein in their page.

Poor Willhelm is revolving in his grave.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Most pre-Marxian forms of popular rebellion/revolution actually had heterodox spirituality at their core... just saying.

Hence their anti-scientific nature. I suppose "pre-marxian" equates to pre proletarian, at its developed height the proletariat superstructurally opposed spirituality. Class nature is important.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Astarte]

Hence their anti-scientific nature. I suppose "pre-marxian" equates to pre proletarian, at its developed height the proletariat superstructurally opposed spirituality. Class nature is important.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Pardon? Pre-Marxian means pre-Marxist. As in before Marx - as in before Marx revolutionary movements of oppressed classes often had a spiritual ideology intertwined with their demands against the status quo. In Europe this makes sense as the state was so closely tied up with the hegemony of Catholicism - opposing the feudal structure in turn would also mean opposing the Catholic church - hence these social movements couldn't help but be Millenarianist and heretical. In the East, specifically ancient China movements of the oppressed classes took on a character of Taoist and or Folk Spirituality as they were seen as humans invoking the will of Heaven, on Earth - it was a sign of the end of the "mandate of Heaven".

If by the "Proletariat superstructurally" you mean the USSR was officially atheist, then yep, it was. Also yep, you are right Class nature is important ... so are clean windshield wipers in the winter months.

[Neoprime]

What do you have against birth control?


There should some form of limit to it, the way they come off as they would prefer it to be uncontrolled/unchecked, can't go with that.

[Art Vandelay]

Most pre-Marxian forms of popular rebellion/revolution actually had heterodox spirituality at their core... just saying.

This doesn't really contradict anything I said. Simply because religion played a part in past historical epochs rebellions/revolutions, doesn't make Marx's quote any less of an accurate description of religion in this mode of production.

[Astarte]

This doesn't really contradict anything I said. Simply because religion played a part in past historical epochs rebellions/revolutions, doesn't make Marx's quote any less of an accurate description of religion in this mode of production.

You do know the full quote though, don't you?


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Anyway, my point was, that even in the epoch of capitalism it is not universally true that spirituality is simply a dulling mechanism on oppressed classes - take in point the Boxer Rebellion, or the Taiping movement - though both were obviously non-Marxian, they were nonetheless fiercely anti-Imperialist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Anyway, my point was, that even in the epoch of capitalism it is not universally true that spirituality is simply a dulling mechanism on oppressed classes - take in point the Boxer Rebellion, or the Taiping movement - though both were obviously non-Marxian, they were nonetheless fiercely anti-Imperialist.

They were also reactionary, the Boxers fighting for the feudal Qing dynasty and the Taiping rebels fighting against it in favour of a messianic theocracy.

Hardly models for revolutionary leftists...

[Astarte]

They were also reactionary, the Boxers fighting for the feudal Qing dynasty and the Taiping rebels fighting against it in favour of a messianic theocracy.

Hardly models for revolutionary leftists...

That's funny, both Mao and Sun Yatsen considered the Taiping rebellion as a great early revolutionary movement against the feudalism of the Qing. Because they weren't Marxists they are automatically "reactionary"? Likewise, the Boxers were an early Chinese nationalist movement which opposed European Imperialism. I don't see how they could be categorized as historically "reactionary" - doing so is kind of naive to be honest. Seems to me they were a part of China's historical struggle for self-determination against imperialism and process of shedding feudalism. Do you believe the British Imperialists were more of a progressive force because they were "bringing capitalist relations to backwards feudal China"? If that is your line of argument I would say that the Sphere system did not really develop the infrastructure of the Chinese mainland, but rather economically leached off of the wealth of the nation via the port cities. The social character of the movements is actually besides the point though, as the issue I am taking is that spirituality/religion's only affect on the human mind is some kind of inertia causing "dulling opiate" which has been proven to be untrue in the case of Millenarian movements and others, and is only drawn from a misreading or partial-snippet reading of the entire "opiate of the masses" quote.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's funny, both Mao and Sun Yatsen considered the Taiping rebellion as a great early revolutionary movement against the feudalism of the Qing. Because they weren't Marxists they are automatically "reactionary"? Likewise, the Boxers were an early Chinese nationalist movement which opposed European Imperialism. I don't see how they could be categorized as historically "reactionary" - doing so is kind of naive to be honest. Seems to me they were a part of China's historical struggle for self-determination against imperialism. Do you believe the British Imperialists were more of a progressive force because they were "bringing capitalist relations to backwards feudal China"?

No, I maintain that anti-imperialism is not a redeeming feature for movements defending feudal/theocratic relations. Neither the Taiping rebels, the Boxers nor the British played progressive roles in the relevant events.


The social character of the movements is actually besides the point though, as the issue I am taking is that spirituality/religion's only affect on the human mind is some kind of inertia causing "dulling opiate" which has been proven to be untrue in the case of Millenarian movements and others, and is only drawn from a misreading or partial-snippet reading of the entire "opiate of the masses" quote.

Rank superstitious fervor is hardly an improvement over Heaven-induced apathy.

[Astarte]

No, I maintain that anti-imperialism is not a redeeming feature for movements defending feudal/theocratic relations. Neither the Taiping rebels, the Boxers nor the British played progressive roles in the relevant events.



Rank superstitious fervor is hardly an improvement over Heaven-induced apathy.

Well, I am not sure how you can't see the influential role those rebels played on Sun Yatsen - the father of Chinese self-determination, and Mao, who finally achieved it and actually made contributions to Marxism. What about Freemasonry during the French and American bourgeois revolutions? Their spiritually heterodox lodges were essentially the organization centers of the revolutions and the ideological backbone of the smashing of Catholic theology over society. Also, if you look back on the broad history of Imperial China, essentially every movement against the status quo which emotionally moved people to rebel against the Dynasties was based on "rank superstitious fervor" - again, it is highly naive to discount entire epochal tracts of history in the manner you do with a few snide patronizing words towards these 'primitive rebels' as Hobsbawm would categorize them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, I am not sure how you can't see the influential role those rebels played on Sun Yatsen - the father of Chinese self-determination, and Mao, who finally achieved it and actually made contributions to Marxism.

What does this "influence" specifically amount to, apart from nationalistic name-dropping?


What about Freemasonry during the French and American bourgeois revolutions? Their spiritually heterodox lodges were essentially the organization centers of the revolutions and the ideological backbone of the smashing of Catholic theology over society.

Strikes me as the bourgeois equivalent to Blanquism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanquism). No good for anyone interested in genuinely popular social change, as opposed to the machinations of a cabal of conspirators.


Also, if you look back on the broad history of Imperial China, essentially every movement against the status quo which emotionally moved people to rebel against the Dynasties was based on "rank superstitious fervor" - again, it is highly naive to discount entire epochal tracts of history in the manner you do with a few snide patronizing words towards these 'primitive rebels' as Hobsbawm would categorize them.

A genuine movement against the status quo would involve the entire imperial system being brought down, not just a particular dynasty which "lost the favour of Heaven" through a peasant revolt.

[Astarte]

What does this "influence" specifically amount to, apart from nationalistic name-dropping?

In history, great tasks sometimes take a long time and many tries to accomplish - do you think the Bolsheviks would have come to be without the Narodniks? Would 1917 have occurred if 1905 did not precede it? It is the same case as the Taiping and Boxers - that is what their influence over Sun and Mao "specifically amounts to apart from nationalistic name-dropping" - quantity of false starts, misguided actions and failed attempts to end feudalism and oust foreign Imperialism finally turned into the quality of the successes of Sun Yatsen and Mao.


Strikes me as the bourgeois equivalent to Blanquism. No good for anyone interested in genuinely popular social change, as opposed to the machinations of a cabal of conspirators. In regards to the bourgeois revolutions the entire leadership is comprised of the bourgeoisie. You must understand that Catholicism was the theology of the feudalists - thus in reaction to feudalist theology, Freemasonry developed. Masonry developed quite parallel and along side the bourgeoisie as a class, as a matter of fact and, as the name implies, developed out of the stonemason's guild system - they were able to practice heterodox ritual since their class position as burgerlich allowed them much more autonomy from the feudal system as a whole than the serf, or even feudal lord ... so if you want to categorize the leadership of the bourgeois revolutions as a "blanquist cabal" it would be a gross historical misappellation, but you would be right in that the bourgeois revolutionary leaders were quite divorced from the rank and file of serfdom and whatever urban proletariat had yet to partially develop. The point is though, for the most part, any bourgeois in any kind of influential position to act in the revolutions would have been active in a lodge or salon as these were some of the first embryonic organizational structures of the graspings towards revolutionary bourgeois power over feudalism.


A genuine movement against the status quo would involve the entire imperial system being brought down, not just a particular dynasty which "lost the favour of Heaven" through a peasant revolt.

I think you are still being a little naive here in regards to it being a bit like asking Spartacus to have set up the Paris Commune. There was no way at the time for the Taiping to have come to the conclusions of even setting up a Bourgeois republic, at the time materials translated into Chinese about bourgeois republicanism were just far too scant - that is why it wasn't until the time of Sun Yatsen they were popularized.