socialism and advocacy of liberal ideals

[campesino]

I was watching a CNN (there was nothing better on) documentary on the mosque in Murfreesboro TN that was being set on fire and harassed and sued by reactionary locals.

This kind of thing used to make my blood boil, but halfway through the documentary I realized I don't give a shit, if these people are being persecuted for their religion, I feel no obligation to help them or feel sympathy. I used to look at the regrettable situation of christians in Iraq and feel bad, but now I just don't care. Religion is dumb and it's followers shouldn't be defended nor persecuted. why?

because religion is reactionary.

what is up with some leftist groups having a strong emphasis on marriage equality?

As a communist I am against all marriage. Isn't marriage reactionary?

Advocating marriage equality will not move us forward to socialism or expand class consciousness.

[Igor]

Burning mosques and harassing people going there is first and foremost fueled by racism, not opposition to reactionary ideologies or shit like that so hell yeah you should defend those people. Pretty much same for the Christians in Iraq really, there's a really frightening tendency in the left to shrug some serious problems as liberal issues; there's absolutely nothing liberal in defending people who're being otherized and persecuted by the society. In my books, it's a lot more reactionary to not give a shit about issues like that than to worship a deity.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

We should speak out against all injustices:
"The Social-Democratic doctrine is one of struggle against all oppression, all robbery, all injustice. Only he who knows the causes of oppression and who all his life fights every case of oppression is a real Social-Democrat."
-Lenin

[Manic Impressive]

As soon as I read this I knew you were going to catch some shit for it. You are kind of right but so is Igor.

It would help if I knew exactly what was meant by defending. If it means getting angry at the TV and posting on Revleft saying how terrible it is then that is obviously useless as it has no material impact other than making you feel shitty. If by defending you mean organizing solidarity groups and campaigns then this is also pointless and leads to reformist politics. Solidarity acts never have the desired impact. Just look at the SWP-Respect fiasco. I'm not criticizing people who do things like this just that they are fooling themselves if they think it actually leads to socialist consciousness.

However, all worker on worker violence should be opposed. It's just we're powerless to do anything about it.

[Terminator X]

What the fuck is this Randian bullshit?

[Silvr]

However, all worker on worker violence should be opposed. It's just we're powerless to do anything about it.

Your class reductionism/workerism is really obnoxious. It isn't just "worker on worker" violence that should be opposed. If somebody--yes, even a sacred worker--burns down a synagogue attended mostly by middle class Jews, or a mosque attended by mostly middle class Muslims, it isn't any less disgusting or reactionary or worthy of condemnation than it would be if the victims were working class. Its people like you guys that drive well-intentioned radicals away from communist politics.

[campesino]

Burning mosques and harassing people going there is first and foremost fueled by racism, not opposition to reactionary ideologies or shit like that so hell yeah you should defend those people. Pretty much same for the Christians in Iraq really, there's a really frightening tendency in the left to shrug some serious problems as liberal issues; there's absolutely nothing liberal in defending people who're being otherized and persecuted by the society. In my books, it's a lot more reactionary to not give a shit about issues like that than to worship a deity.

I don't see it as an injustice to burn down the building of a reactionary ideology.

mosque/church/synagogue/temple burning =/= gay-bashing

[Silvr]

Are you seriously completely blind to any context?

[#FF0000]

I don't see it as an injustice to burn down the building of a reactionary ideology.

Mainly because not every religious person is 'an oppressor' nor is religion necessarily oppressive or reactionary. People twist religion all day every day to make it fit with their worldview, pacifistic or otherwise.

And yeah attacking some muslims isn't the same as attacking some billionaire fundamentalist christians in a mega church.

[Terminator X]

I don't see it as an injustice to burn down the building of a reactionary ideology.

Enlighten us with your opinion of the Nazi scumfuck who took out a shitload of Sikhs a few weeks ago.

[Yuppie Grinder]

There is no such thing as marriage equality.

[campesino]

Mainly because not every religious person is 'an oppressor' nor is religion necessarily oppressive or reactionary. People twist religion all day every day to make it fit with their worldview, pacifistic or otherwise.

And yeah attacking some muslims isn't the same as attacking some billionaire fundamentalist christians in a mega church.

religion is a relic that should be done away with, those who know the dangers of following certain religions in hostile places, have made their decision, why should they be protected


Enlighten us with your opinion of the Nazi scumfuck who took out a shitload of Sikhs a few weeks ago.

the man is a terrorist, but I would not give a cent to help out the Sikh.

my concern is the working class, not promoting/protecting false identities(christian muslim sikh)

[Ostrinski]

Man I wish Franz Fanonipants was still here, he'd have a field day with you

[Silvr]

my concern is the working class, not promoting/protecting false identities(christian muslim sikh)

But it doesn't have anything to do with "promoting or protecting false identities". It isn't a question of endorsing religious beliefs, which no communist would do, but of opposing bigotry and acts of violence based on bigotry.

So just to make sure you are following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: are you also indifferent to massacres and genocides where the victims are targeted due to their religion?

[Il Medico]

religion is a relic that should be done away with, those who know the dangers of following certain religions in hostile places, have made their decision, why should they be protected

Are you fucking serious? You're seriously going with the "They had it coming" line? Fucking hell. I don't care if you think religion is stupid or not, it's pretty fucking important to care when racist dickheads harm other people because they believe in a different magical sky man. Fighting against racism and other prejudices that divide the working class is of paramount importance to the left.

[GPDP]

religion is a relic that should be done away with, those who know the dangers of following certain religions in hostile places, have made their decision, why should they be protected



the man is a terrorist, but I would not give a cent to help out the Sikh.

my concern is the working class, not promoting/protecting false identities(christian muslim sikh)

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL EDGY

It's not a question of protecting religion. It's a question of having at least an ounce of sympathy for people that are being fucking persecuted by racist bigot fuckheads.

I seriously don't get where you're going with this line of reasoning other than to try to appear more prolier-than-thou.

[Prof. Oblivion]

because religion is reactionary.

Quite a blanket statement. Marx would disagree.


my concern is the working class, not promoting/protecting false identities(christian muslim sikh)

The defense of people being persecuted for no reason other than religious affiliation isn't a "promot[ion of] false identities." Perhaps maybe if you met some of the Sikh people that were victims or knew victims you would not be so ignorant.

[Ocean Seal]

Religion is less reactionary than not caring about ethnic minorities who are being harassed and endangered because of bigotry.

[Ocean Seal]

Are you fucking serious? You're seriously going with the "They had it coming line"? Fucking hell. I don't care if you think religion is stupid or not, it's pretty fucking important to care when racist dickheads harm other people because they believe in a different magical sky man. Fighting against racism and other prejudices that divide the working class is of paramount importance to the left.
Also to add to this, I'm pretty sure that if they were atheists or Christians they still would have been shot at. Reactionary racists don't care what religion you are, they simply identify religion with culture and race and target accordingly. Also fuck the OP you privileged shit.

[Lucretia]

I was watching a CNN (there was nothing better on) documentary on the mosque in Murfreesboro TN that was being set on fire and harassed and sued by reactionary locals.

This kind of thing used to make my blood boil, but halfway through the documentary I realized I don't give a shit, if these people are being persecuted for their religion, I feel no obligation to help them or feel sympathy. I used to look at the regrettable situation of christians in Iraq and feel bad, but now I just don't care. Religion is dumb and it's followers shouldn't be defended nor persecuted. why?

because religion is reactionary.

what is up with some leftist groups having a strong emphasis on marriage equality?

As a communist I am against all marriage. Isn't marriage reactionary?

Advocating marriage equality will not move us forward to socialism or expand class consciousness.

About the only thing more reactionary than religion is violently cracking down on people's religious beliefs.

[Robespierres Neck]

I'm quite amazed that the OP can't see that burning a Mosque in southern America isn't a racist act, and that he has no remorse for it. It's not hard to link the two together.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As long as there's a sizable portion of communists who think its ok to kill anyone with even a mildly reactionary belief, most workers will recoil at what seems like a violent and inhumane ideology.

Even Lenin came out in favor of religious equality because he, unlike the OP, saw the connection between state religion, interfaith violence and the idealist basis of autocracy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't see it as an injustice to burn down the building of a reactionary ideology.

mosque/church/synagogue/temple burning =/= gay-bashing

Church bombings during the US civil rights movement? Pre-Nazi Germany Nazi attacks on Jewish areas and buildings? The Egyptian SCAF government playing Muslims against Copts in order to weaken the solidarity built during the uprisings and to give themselves justifications to show that "military rule is still needed to protect people from themselves"?

What justifications does the US still have to rally the US population behind US imperial aims in the Middle East and North Africa? No one believes in WMD but a minority fully adopt Islamophobic reasons and a larger percentage at least go along with the basic assumptions such as: "Islam being more reactionary than comparable religions"; or the middle east being "devoid of culture and stuck in the Middle Ages"; or current conflicts of countries that didn't exist before British and French Imperialism and many that didn't exist until after WWII being "ancient tribal conflicts".

Racism and xenophobia and religious repression are TOOLS to keep the class system intact, to keep people as 2nd class citizens, to make people afraid to speak out or exercise any rights they are supposed to have, to demonize people and rally support for Imperialist wars.

In the case of Islamophobia in the US, it's the modern version of white man's burden: secular/christian capitalism has to save Arabs from themselves because their religion prevents them from being "civilized" ("ready for Democracy").


my concern is the working class, not promoting/protecting false identities(christian muslim sikh)If your concern is the working class then you should take these kinds of attacks as seriously as anything else in the class struggle. These kinds of attacks are how our rulers keep people fighting amongst themselves and repression against one group of non-rulers gives the capitalist state new powers to go after the rest of the class. Demonize poor drug-dealers and create SWAT teams that are now used against strikes and Occupy protests. Demonize Arab "terrorists" and create a whole new infrastructure for going after immigrants and political dissidents. It's happened time and time again in modern history.

[Manic Impressive]

Your class reductionism/workerism is really obnoxious. It isn't just "worker on worker" violence that should be opposed. If somebody--yes, even a sacred worker--burns down a synagogue attended mostly by middle class Jews, or a mosque attended by mostly middle class Muslims, it isn't any less disgusting or reactionary or worthy of condemnation than it would be if the victims were working class. Its people like you guys that drive well-intentioned radicals away from communist politics.
Nah man you've misunderstood. In revolutionary terms I don't think the petit bourgeois are an obstacle to revolution. Socialism is for the most part in their interests these days as they are unable to compete with the bourgeois proper. This means their interests are in line with the revolutionary class. So in this instance I was including them when referring to workers. What I was talking about is the sort of tribalism we see in football hooligans, or the bloody murderous drug gangs around the world or religious wingnuts burning down each others place of worship. Petty and senseless violence like this hinders the working class from uniting and realizing who the real enemy is. That's what I mean by opposing worker on worker violence and of course that goes for attacking small business owners as well.

[Manic Impressive]

As long as there's a sizable portion of communists who think its ok to kill anyone with even a mildly reactionary belief, most workers will recoil at what seems like a violent and inhumane ideology.

Even Lenin came out in favor of religious equality because he, unlike the OP, saw the connection between state religion, interfaith violence and the idealist basis of autocracy.
I think you've misunderstood campesino. He's not saying that we should go around killing religious people, he's not saying we should celebrate when it happens. He's just saying that the faux left wing defense of religions is pointless and leads to liberal politics.

[Silvr]

Nah man you've misunderstood. In revolutionary terms I don't think the petit bourgeois are an obstacle to revolution. Socialism is for the most part in their interests these days as they are unable to compete with the bourgeois proper. This means their interests are in line with the revolutionary class. So in this instance I was including them when referring to workers. What I was talking about is the sort of tribalism we see in football hooligans, or the bloody murderous drug gangs around the world or religious wingnuts burning down each others place of worship. Petty and senseless violence like this hinders the working class from uniting and realizing who the real enemy is. That's what I mean by opposing worker on worker violence and of course that goes for attacking small business owners as well.

I actually don't agree with you that the interests of small business owners, particularly those who employ workers, are in line with working class interests. But I think this is beside the point completely. Racism and ethnic or religious persecution isn't always directly reducible to class. Sometimes the people on the receiving end of said persecution are even members of the bourgeoisie. That doesn't make it any more excusable. It doesn't make it any less reactionary or any less antithetical to a communist perspective.

[citizen of industry]

Racism and ethnic or religious persecution isn't always directly reducible to class. Sometimes the people on the receiving end of said persecution are even members of the bourgeoisie.

This I think is the danger of taking political action in this situation. Of course, it is a tragic act and I oppose it. But the danger of reformist politics is evident for a political organization to endorse and organize over it, because there is no class line. If you feel you have to endorse this position, why not endorse every position like animal rights, environmentalism, etc.? Then the anger becomes misdirected, not focused on capitalism. Then tying those issues to capitalism is like trying to play the kevin bacon game and people just look at you like a reductionist nut.

Of course, the OP's attitude, that it is somehow good that they are being violently attacked is off the mark. But the advocacy of liberal ideals part is relevant.

[Silvr]

Siembra Socialismo, I cant really make heads or tails of your post, to be honest...

This I think is the danger of taking political action in this situation. What situation?
Of course, it is a tragic act and I oppose it. Which is my entire point.

But the danger of reformist politics is evident for a political organization to endorse and organize over it, because there is no class line. To 'endorse' what? As for whether there is any merit to 'organizing over it', it would obviously be dependent on the situation and other factors relating to the size and influence of the organization.


If you feel you have to endorse this position, why not endorse every position like animal rights, environmentalism, etc.? If I feel I have to 'endorse' what position? Animal rights and environmentalism? What are you even talking about? I genuinely have no clue at this point.


Then the anger becomes misdirected, not focused on capitalism. I think that is exactly the function of a lot of religious and ethnic persecution, actually.


Then tying those issues to capitalism is like trying to play the kevin bacon game and people just look at you like a reductionist nut. I have absolutely no fucking clue how Kevin Bacon relates to this discussion at all, but I actually do think 'those issues' are very much tied to capitalism. I am not sure what in any of my posts in this thread would make you think otherwise. The fact that not all ethnic and religious persecution is immediately reducible to 'worker on worker violence' does not at all suggest that it isn't tied to capitalism; it most certainly is.


Of course, the OP's attitude, that it is somehow good that they are being violently attacked is off the mark. But the advocacy of liberal ideals part is relevant. I would choose liberal antiracist politics over the shit politics of some of the weirdos in this thread any day.

[Manic Impressive]

But I think this is beside the point completely. Racism and ethnic or religious persecution isn't always directly reducible to class. Sometimes the people on the receiving end of said persecution are even members of the bourgeoisie. That doesn't make it any more excusable. It doesn't make it any less reactionary or any less antithetical to a communist perspective.
Can capitalism survive without racism. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive without patriarchy. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive with responsible environmental protection. Yes it can. Will these things happen under capitalism. It seems highly unlikely maybe even impossible. But that's a different question and is not dependent on whether capitalism as a mode of production can continue to exist.

So if capitalism can exist without these things then these are reforms. It really is a strawman to say that just because we won't campaign and organize around these things that we don't want them or that we oppose them. It's just that we realize that they are improvements to capitalism, not a threat to capitalism itself. It's like if you asked me what's better state capitalism or free market capitalism. I'd probably take state capitalism any day over the shit we've got at the moment. However I would still oppose both equally as both are capitalism. I'm about abolishing capitalism not improving it or making it run better.

I hope that helps explain it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can capitalism survive without racism. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive without patriarchy. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive with responsible environmental protection. Yes it can. Will these things happen under capitalism. It seems highly unlikely maybe even impossible. But that's a different question and is not dependent on whether capitalism as a mode of production can continue to exist.First this is an abstract argument because no capitalist regime has ever existed - probably no class system (at it's mature-state) has ever existed without some kind of special rules or repression, often for the sake of dividing the majority to preserve the power of the ruling minority.

But can capitalism as we know it exist without racism or sexism or religious repression? Sure, the levels and varieties of these kinds of oppressions have changed at various times. But I am very very doubtful that there could ever be a capitalist regime that did not in SOME WAY divide up the population and create or encourage divisions within the mass of the non-ruling population.

But I think your argument needs to be flipped. Can the working class organize itself for mass collective rule of society with rampant racism? With commonplace female and sexual oppression? With religious minority persecution? For those who believe that socialism can only come from working class self-emancipation, I think the answer is no, a divided and pitted-against working class is a weak working class.

The fight against forms of specific oppression (religious, ethnic, etc) is one of the prime ways that working class movements can begin to develop and strengthen. In the US this is the history of trade unions where anti-Chinese and anti-black and anti-immigrant racism allowed the system to scapegoat poverty, excuse crackdowns, and also allowed the bosses to directly pit workers against each-other in strikes by using segregated workforces and using scabs from a marginalized group of workers. When workers were able to begin to overcome these divisions is when workers began to shift the balance in struggle.

[Zealot]

OP should be banned for being a reactionary. The fact that he/she has no sympathy for people who were recently massacred by a racist, for merely not liking their religion, is disgusting. Your right-wing rubbish would go down better with Hitchenist cliques, not on a site for revolutionary leftists.

By his logic the Holocaust was a tragedy that we shouldn't really care about because they were all Jews!

[citizen of industry]

First this is an abstract argument because no capitalist regime has ever existed - probably no class system (at it's mature-state) has ever existed without some kind of special rules or repression, often for the sake of dividing the majority to preserve the power of the ruling minority.

But can capitalism as we know it exist without racism or sexism or religious repression? Sure, the levels and varieties of these kinds of oppressions have changed at various times. But I am very very doubtful that there could ever be a capitalist regime that did not in SOME WAY divide up the population and create or encourage divisions within the mass of the non-ruling population.

But I think your argument needs to be flipped. Can the working class organize itself for mass collective rule of society with rampant racism? With commonplace female and sexual oppression? With religious minority persecution? For those who believe that socialism can only come from working class self-emancipation, I think the answer is no, a divided and pitted-against working class is a weak working class.

The fight against forms of specific oppression (religious, ethnic, etc) is one of the prime ways that working class movements can begin to develop and strengthen. In the US this is the history of trade unions where anti-Chinese and anti-black and anti-immigrant racism allowed the system to scapegoat poverty, excuse crackdowns, and also allowed the bosses to directly pit workers against each-other in strikes by using segregated workforces and using scabs from a marginalized group of workers. When workers were able to begin to overcome these divisions is when workers began to shift the balance in struggle.

The class line in the latter example is very clear though. You are endorsing trade unions, as they halt creation of surplus value at the point of production, and condemning racism of one racial grouping of unionists against another. Obviously, a division of unionists on racial grounds is a victory for capital.

In the situation we are describing, as put clearly by slvr:

Racism and ethnic or religious persecution isn't always directly reducible to class. Sometimes the people on the receiving end of said persecution are even members of the bourgeoisie.

the class line is not so clear. And for a socialist party to endorse or campaign with a specific church against the actions of another church runs a risk of reformism, especially if it cannot be reduced to class and has members of the bourgeoisie. All these issues might hurt the working class, but for a party to ally itself with a mosque, an environmental group, a human rights group, a charity, etc. and it no longer becomes class struggle, nor does anything to further class consciousness. It just becomes a demand for capitalism to improve its racial, environmental, human rights policies. Look at parties that build up a lot of front groups. Do the front groups really help build the party? Or do the front groups grow at the expense of the party?

[Manic Impressive]

First this is an abstract argument because no capitalist regime has ever existed - probably no class system (at it's mature-state) has ever existed without some kind of special rules or repression, often for the sake of dividing the majority to preserve the power of the ruling minority.

But can capitalism as we know it exist without racism or sexism or religious repression? Sure, the levels and varieties of these kinds of oppressions have changed at various times. But I am very very doubtful that there could ever be a capitalist regime that did not in SOME WAY divide up the population and create or encourage divisions within the mass of the non-ruling population.
Well what I should have added is that no reform is made that is not int the interest of private capital. If one of these things were to occur it would be as a result of it being profitable. But I would cite ancient Rome as an example of a society which for the most part existed without racial discrimination. If you were a citizen and lived in Rome, you were a Roman. You weren't an African Roman or a German Roman you were a Roman. The reason for this is when you have greater threat from outside enemies than you do for your own population it is better for the ruling class to have a united population in order to defend wealth from outside invaders. Now when we look at current day US it's never faced a real threat except from the internal population so it's been highly beneficial to stratify the population and enhance the alienation. What I'm saying is it depends on the material conditions a ruling class faces, if something is in their interests they'll usually get around to doing it. I am of course not saying that Rome did not have other means to divide people, obviously on gender and class just not on ethnicity. So I agree when you say that probably "no class system (at it's mature-state) has ever existed without some kind of special rules or repression" Just citing an example where it is in the interests of the ruling class to have a less divided society.


But I think your argument needs to be flipped. Can the working class organize itself for mass collective rule of society with rampant racism? With commonplace female and sexual oppression? With religious minority persecution? For those who believe that socialism can only come from working class self-emancipation, I think the answer is no, a divided and pitted-against working class is a weak working class.
This really is the crux of the argument. First with rampant racism are we talking systemic or general racism? ( I never know with Revleft) If it's systemic then we have no control over that. As I demonstrated it depends on the material conditions that the ruling face. The greater internal threat they face the greater the need for them to divide us will become. Systemic racism may be the way they do that and no amount of protesting will make them do something which is not in their interests, unless of course it's a threat to capitalism itself then you'll see them pull out all the reforms. I always say if what you want is reforms then go for revolution as it's the only sure fire way to get them to do something they don't want to do. If we're talking about general racism, you know ignorant name calling or stereotypes and that stuff. Then I don't know. The only way we can do anything to stop that is to integrate more in the face of division. But what unites us is the oppression that we all face, capitalism.


The fight against forms of specific oppression (religious, ethnic, etc) is one of the prime ways that working class movements can begin to develop and strengthen. In the US this is the history of trade unions where anti-Chinese and anti-black and anti-immigrant racism allowed the system to scapegoat poverty, excuse crackdowns, and also allowed the bosses to directly pit workers against each-other in strikes by using segregated workforces and using scabs from a marginalized group of workers. When workers were able to begin to overcome these divisions is when workers began to shift the balance in struggle.
Certainly no-one can deny the historical impact that uniting against racism has had in raising wages and fighting back against employers. Even contemptible parties like the CP-USA did commendable things for black workers in America during the 50's. However, did this lead to lasting class consciousness among black or Latino communities? Has any of this solidarity actually lead to greater unity within our class? I see no evidence of significant progress coming from these tactics. Generally what we see with solidarity actions is dropping revolution in favour of reform. As we see with SWP Respect thing over here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Racism and ethnic or religious persecution isn't always directly reducible to class. Sometimes the people on the receiving end of said persecution are even members of the bourgeoisie.

the class line is not so clear.

Yes it is. It is "reducible" to class (even if the impact is not) in that all these oppressions (which generally do cross class-lines in practice in society, though not always in the same way depending on the person's class) because ultimately they are STRUCTURES and TOOLS for maintaining ruling class power. In fact they would be less useful strategies if these kinds of restrictions did not, to some degree, cross class lines in their impact.

This is not to say that the interests of the oppressed worker and oppressed petty-bourgoise of the same group are completely harmonious. All movements against these kinds of oppression generally do have a class split over perspective, aims, and tactics. That's why class politics is necessary for these movements to develop beyond a reformist phase; that's why these things are interlinked, not opposed as in there's class oppression and then other oppression.

Workers need to aid non-working class people suffering from oppression if only for the reason that if racism/homophobia/sexism is being employed against petty-bourgoise people of a particular group, for example, there's no way that that oppression isn't also in some way impacting working class members of that group - probably to a much greater degree. Hell take sexist attacks on a ruling class woman like Hilary Clinton. She's complete shit in my opinion but if it's acceptable for her to be attacked in the mainstream on a sexist basis, do you really think that her "lack of ability to do serious work because of her gender" or "being assertive means you are not a real woman" has NO impact on what flies as far as treatment and attitudes towards women in the workplace?

[campesino]

OP should be banned for being a reactionary. The fact that he/she has no sympathy for people who were recently massacred by a racist, for merely not liking their religion, is disgusting. Your right-wing rubbish would go down better with Hitchenist cliques, not on a site for revolutionary leftists.

By his logic the Holocaust was a tragedy that we shouldn't really care about because they were all Jews!

As'ad Abu Khalil said "Atheists are opposed to all religions. A person who opposes one religion only is a bigot. Big difference."

I am not a bigot. Do not associate me to Hitchens. I do not support colonialism, I do not view ethnicities as savages, I do not believe in western superiority.

Why is everyone so quick to defend the religions, what purpose is their in supporting them?

do you fear atheism is too unpopular or weak an ideology that we must appease the religions. Change will not happen if we rely on the current consciousness to create change, a new radical consciousness will create the conditions for socialism.

[Terminator X]

Why is everyone so quick to defend the religions, what purpose is their in supporting them?

I don't support organized religion at all, but if it makes someone feel better about their life to go to a church/synagogue/mosque etc. once a week, then who the fuck am I to say they can't? And I certainly would defend their right to organize without insane machine gun-wielding Nazis killing them based on their skin color or having their gathering place burned down by crazed bigots.

Religious people are a HUGE part of the working class that you would be alienating through your lunacy.

[Jazzratt]

Why is everyone so quick to defend the religions, what purpose is their in supporting them?
I think your problem (well, one problem amongst your vast panoply of problems) is that for whatever reason your malfunctioning brain can't process the difference between a defence of religion as a whole [or even specific religions] and defence of people, largely workers, getting killed and harassed because of their religion. I don't think anyone here thinks religion is a good thing but that sure as shit doesn't mean we should tacitly endorse people shooting up temples and burning down mosques.


do you fear atheism is too unpopular or weak an ideology that we must appease the religions.
Not shooting people is appeasement, now?


Change will not happen if we rely on the current consciousness to create change, a new radical consciousness will create the conditions for socialism.
You've used words and put them in a grammatically adequate order but you've managed to say absolutely fuck all.

[Manic Impressive]

Can I ask people what they mean by defence? and what they have done personally to defend the rights of religious workers within the last month or year or ever.

Because all this talk of defense sounds like hot air as if you think posting on an internet forum = Defence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

do you fear atheism is too unpopular or weak an ideology that we must appease the religions. Change will not happen if we rely on the current consciousness to create change, a new radical consciousness will create the conditions for socialism.1. Opposing people being targeted because they were born into a culture or are searching for meaning through supernatural explanations or wanting to belong or whatever other reasons religious people are religious is not "appeasement"; it's opposition to oppression.

2. How do you propose that people develop a "new radical consciousness"? How does ignoring attacks on oppressed groups help build that consciousness among people?

[campesino]

Can I ask people what they mean by defence? and what they have done personally to defend the rights of religious workers within the last month or year or ever.

Because all this talk of defense sounds like hot air as if you think posting on an internet forum = Defence.

it is hot air, this is just a a debate in between differing viewpoints. when I say defence, I mean ideological support not material support.

@Jazzrat

should right-wing workers be protected to practice their right-wingism? because they are workers.
should religious workers be free to practice their foolishness? just because they are workers.

@Terminator X

what do you think of the statement

I don't support reaction at all, but if it makes someone feel better about their life to go to a fascist/nationalist/tea party etc. meeting once a week, then who the fuck am I to say they can't?

this is liberalism.

[campesino]

1. Opposing people being targeted because they were born into a culture or are searching for meaning through supernatural explanations or wanting to belong or whatever other reasons religious people are religious is not "appeasement"; it's opposition to oppression.

2. How do you propose that people develop a "new radical consciousness"? How does ignoring attacks on oppressed groups help build that consciousness among people?

opposing oppression just because it is oppression is liberalism. should the right-wing not be oppressed either.

2. the new consciousness will come from class struggle, when the poor wake up as a class and see how they are getting shafted by the bourgeoisie and its tools of religion, nationalism. the driving force of class struggle will not be fighting oppression, but hatred of the bourgeoisie. Hostility towards the upper class is what will motivate the socialist movement, not anti-oppression.

[Crux]

People like the OP, and the abundance of sexists, racists, islamophobe, elitists and libertarians in the "atheist movement", makes me think that perhaps I should reconsider my life-long non-belief. I was gonna throw a Lenin quote at you as well, but you can look up the chapters in What Is To Be Done? yourselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can I ask people what they mean by defence? and what they have done personally to defend the rights of religious workers within the last month or year or ever.

Because all this talk of defense sounds like hot air as if you think posting on an internet forum = Defence.Nothing. It hasn't been as much of a direct issue where I am. I also haven't been on a gay rights march in over a year... so I'm "hot air" if I discuss LGBT rights and movement potential or strategy?

At any rate, some concrete examples of things that might be done in the US would be, for example, the counter-protests to the "Victory Mosque" tea-party bullshit. Shutting those fuckers down certainty does more to create more consiousness about how Islamophobia is used to win people in general to supporting wars, it can help build links between activists and the immigrant community in New York, of which a chunk are Muslims. And of course the anti-Islam rehtoric was also the origin of the anti-immigrant calls for "securing the border" and calls for greater domestic policing powers. So it sould be clear the potential impact this specific struggle could have in opening up wider class struggle. It's not necessarily that you have to first have one struggle and then the other, just that they are tangled together in society and are part of the knot that keep us tied up in this class system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

opposing oppression just because it is oppression is liberalism. should the right-wing not be oppressed either.Um... who said anything about opposing oppression in the abstract... my comment was that opposing oppression (regardless of the motivation actually) is not "appeasement".

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

People like the OP, and the abundance of sexists, racists, islamophobe, elitists and libertarians in the "atheist movement", makes me think that perhaps I should reconsider my life-long non-belief. I was gonna throw a Lenin quote at you as well, but you can look up the chapters in What Is To Be Done? yourselves.

If you ain't quoting, I will:

“Agitation must be conducted with regard to every concrete example of this oppression (as we have begun to carry on agitation round concrete examples of economic oppression). Inasmuch as this oppression affects the most diverse classes of society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in the most varied spheres of life and activity — vocational, civic, personal, family, religious, scientific, etc., etc. ”
-V.I. Lenin, What is to be done?

[Manic Impressive]

Nothing. It hasn't been as much of a direct issue where I am. I also haven't been on a gay rights march in over a year... so I'm "hot air" if I discuss LGBT rights and movement potential or strategy?
Well Jimmy I knew you'd be the only or at least first person to respond to that as I've seen you post about doing things like that before. Yet for the majority of people who "defend" religious workers they don't do shit and then have a go at people who are honest about not doing shit. I find it slightly hypocritical tbh. To me defending something implies active engagement not passive support.


At any rate, some concrete examples of things that might be done in the US would be, for example, the counter-protests to the "Victory Mosque" tea-party bullshit. Shutting those fuckers down certainty does more to create more consiousness about how Islamophobia is used to win people in general to supporting wars, it can help build links between activists and the immigrant community in New York, of which a chunk are Muslims. And of course the anti-Islam rehtoric was also the origin of the anti-immigrant calls for "securing the border" and calls for greater domestic policing powers. So it sould be clear the potential impact this specific struggle could have in opening up wider class struggle. It's not necessarily that you have to first have one struggle and then the other, just that they are tangled together in society and are part of the knot that keep us tied up in this class system.
And this has progressed class consciousness how? Did these people become materialists? Do they now understand that the problem is capitalism? I'm sorry but I don't see how these tactics are helping to bring revolution any closer. These are the struggles of the labour movement, the struggles of petty reforms. It makes Lenin's comment on the working class only being capable of attaining trade union consciousness a self fulfilling prophecy.

[citizen of industry]

Yes it is. It is "reducible" to class (even if the impact is not) in that all these oppressions (which generally do cross class-lines in practice in society, though not always in the same way depending on the person's class) because ultimately they are STRUCTURES and TOOLS for maintaining ruling class power. In fact they would be less useful strategies if these kinds of restrictions did not, to some degree, cross class lines in their impact.

This is not to say that the interests of the oppressed worker and oppressed petty-bourgoise of the same group are completely harmonious. All movements against these kinds of oppression generally do have a class split over perspective, aims, and tactics. That's why class politics is necessary for these movements to develop beyond a reformist phase; that's why these things are interlinked, not opposed as in there's class oppression and then other oppression.

Workers need to aid non-working class people suffering from oppression if only for the reason that if racism/homophobia/sexism is being employed against petty-bourgoise people of a particular group, for example, there's no way that that oppression isn't also in some way impacting working class members of that group - probably to a much greater degree. Hell take sexist attacks on a ruling class woman like Hilary Clinton. She's complete shit in my opinion but if it's acceptable for her to be attacked in the mainstream on a sexist basis, do you really think that her "lack of ability to do serious work because of her gender" or "being assertive means you are not a real woman" has NO impact on what flies as far as treatment and attitudes towards women in the workplace?

So how does that translate into action? Are you going to put an article defending Hillary Clinton in your paper? Are you going to send a letter of solidarity to Hillary Clinton, sign a petition on her behalf, or enter into an anti-sexist front with her?

The problem of unpaid labour in the home isn't going to be solved until the family unit, based on private property is dissolved. That is a socialist question. What the media says about Hillary Clinton shouldn't have any impact on the women in my workplace, because they are working class and Hillary Clinton is ruling class along with the media. The first feminists were socialists. The two are inseperable. Hillary Clinton cannot take that away from our movement.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Others have made more eloquent and considered posts, all I can say is OP is a bit of a shithead.
'Oh look, those guys are getting fucked over...eh, forget it, they're not my people, those dumb religious folk should stop believing that shit if they wanna stop being raped, killed and oppressed'.
Just an ounce of humanity and empathy would be cool, but whatever, shrug off the suffering of others because they're not prolly enough.

[Ostrinski]

This is just the kind of guy OP is, folks. The other day he pm'd me and told me we shouldn't support gay rights or the struggle for them.

[pluckedflowers]

Are you going to put an article defending Hillary Clinton in your paper?

Sure, here's a headline: "Hillary Clinton should be criticized for being an imperialist, not for being a woman." Holy shit, I did it. I proved it is indeed possible to walk and chew gum at the same god-damn time. It's a fucking Christmas miracle.

[Tim Cornelis]

Leaving ethical considerations completely out of the equation, we should still defend religious freedom. The (overwhelming) majority of the world is religious and a working class revolution for its self-emancipation requires the majority—do the math.

It is better to include (in a sense 'co-opt') religion into the socialist movement than to drive them away to the reactionaries. If we go around condemning all religions as reactionary, the actual counter-revolutionaries will be happy to embrace these religious people: catholics fearing they will be persecuted by the reds, will flood towards the whites. Therefore—from an exclusively opportunistic perspective alone—we should always be sympathetic to religion, but not religious bigotry.

[citizen of industry]

Sure, here's a headline: "Hillary Clinton should be criticized for being an imperialist, not for being a woman." Holy shit, I did it. I proved it is indeed possible to walk and chew gum at the same god-damn time. It's a fucking Christmas miracle.

Great headline. Defending Hillary Clinton. How many words are you going to devote to it? Is this on the front page or are you going to bury it somewhere? I'd love to see the full article. You could have chosen working two jobs and trying to feed a kid by yourself with no public daycare while actually having a minute or two to see them, but instead you defend a rich, anti-worker, capitalist. Kudos.

[Crux]

This is just the kind of guy OP is, folks. The other day he pm'd me and told me we shouldn't support gay rights or the struggle for them.
We should only support the working class you know. Well as long as it is white, straight, atheist and male, of course.

[campesino]

Leaving ethical considerations completely out of the equation, we should still defend religious freedom. The (overwhelming) majority of the world is religious and a working class revolution for its self-emancipation requires the majority—do the math.

It is better to include (in a sense 'co-opt') religion into the socialist movement than to drive them away to the reactionaries. If we go around condemning all religions as reactionary, the actual counter-revolutionaries will be happy to embrace these religious people: catholics fearing they will be persecuted by the reds, will flood towards the whites. Therefore—from an exclusively opportunistic perspective alone—we should always be sympathetic to religion, but not religious bigotry.

the people can easily become atheist, there is no need to "co-opt" religions. people only follow religion because the ruling class encourage it, most people will abandon their religion as soon as an atheist regime comes in power.

marxism is anti-thetical to religion.

we must be genuine, if we oppose reaction then we should announce it.

[Hit The North]

Can I ask people what they mean by defence? and what they have done personally to defend the rights of religious workers within the last month or year or ever.

Because all this talk of defense sounds like hot air as if you think posting on an internet forum = Defence.

Well this is easy. It means defending religious workers from attack by highlighting incidents of their oppression in the pages of our press. It means our branches offering support to local communities when issues arise (helping to build a counter demonstration when the EDL or BNP are marching; or leafleting and texting to build a campaign to defend an immigrant from the Home Office, or whatever). It can also mean sticking up for a workmate who is suffering from racist or sexist abuse by management or other workers in the workplace. It means doing this from the pov of being a socialist who's primary concern is to build networks of solidarity and overcome the divisions placed on us through bourgeois ideology.


Great headline. Defending Hillary Clinton. How many words are you going to devote to it? Is this on the front page or are you going to bury it somewhere? I'd love to see the full article. You could have chosen working two jobs and trying to feed a kid by yourself with no public daycare while actually having a minute or two to see them, but instead you defend a rich, anti-worker, capitalist. Kudos.

Not much imagination or journalistic flair is required to comment on this issue from a socialist perspective, as pluckedflowers has already shown.

The article could begin with an attack on those reactionaries who have attacked Clinton for her gender, asserting that socialists are against discrimination and for an end to the historic oppression of females. It could highlight how ordinary working women are relegated to menial part-time labour and suffer a pay-gap due to these sexist ideas. It could then move on to discuss what Clinton, as a member of the ruling elite, has in common with ordinary working class women and conclude that it's 'not much'. The article could then conclude by stressing the limits of 'sisterhood' across class lines by focussing on the appalling record the current administration has in respect of assisting women who are "working two jobs and trying to feed a kid by yourself with no public daycare". It could compare the salary and personal wealth Clinton enjoys with the benefits and debt that a working class single mother on welfare has to endure, itemising their weekly grocery bill or something.

So it would be easy to defend Clinton the woman and, by extension all women, and then turn it into a question of class without having to write one single line that defends Hilary Clinton, the "rich, anti-worker, capitalist."

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

the people can easily become atheist, there is no need to "co-opt" religions. people only follow religion because the ruling class encourage it, most people will abandon their religion as soon as an atheist regime comes in power.

marxism is anti-thetical to religion.

we must be genuine, if we oppose reaction then we should announce it.

That is just not true, religious ideas are placed pretty deep in the traditions and thoughts of alot of humans. It takes tens or even hundreds of years to get that out. For example, Albania was ruled by the atheist and of course communist PLA. They declared it the first atheistic state, not because there weren't any religious people anymore, but because religious institutions and education didn't exist. But after the fall of Socialist Albania still quite an amount of people were religious. Getting religion out is not just a matter of who rules the country.

[campesino]

That is just not true, religious ideas are placed pretty deep in the traditions and thoughts of alot of humans. It takes tens or even hundreds of years to get that out. For example, Albania was ruled by the atheist and of course communist PLA. They declared it the first atheistic state, not because there weren't any religious people anymore, but because religious institutions and education didn't exist. But after the fall of Socialist Albania still quite an amount of people were religious. Getting religion out is not just a matter of who rules the country.

in an atheist regime atheism increased, in a capitalist regime religiosity increased.

wow, what a strong argument against the idea that the masses reflect the beliefs of the ruling class.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

in an atheist regime atheism increased, in a capitalist regime religiosity increased.

wow, what a strong argument against the idea that the masses reflect the beliefs of the ruling class.

Yes it increased, but if you see my wording i said STILL which means that they were religious before. Also anti-theism isn't a big part of marxism, we see it as a thing that will go away eventually, and not as a big evil that we must fight against to death. Marx for example thought that calling ourself an atheist was childish:
"if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label “atheism” (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people."

The struggle against god and religion, is a struggle against the system that produced it. I think that just like the state, religion will whither away.

[Hit The North]

the people can easily become atheist, there is no need to "co-opt" religions. people only follow religion because the ruling class encourage it, most people will abandon their religion as soon as an atheist regime comes in power.



This is not even empirically true. People are mainly inducted and encouraged into religion by their family, not by the ruling class (unless you think your mom and dad are the "ruling class"). The wider community might also place pressure on families to observe religious norms. But it has not been unusual for communities of believers to thrive in the face of the official disapproval of ruling elites.

Meanwhile the official state oppression and/or disaproval of religion in the USSR and Eastern Europe, did little to dissuade millions of people from their religious belief as we can see from its flowering since the fall of those regimes. In fact, if we are to take Marx seriously when he claims that religion is the opiate of the masses, the soul of a soulless condition, we might have expected that bureaucratic rule might have intensified the need for religious consolation in these countries.

EDIT: Campisino, the point is that religion is sustained by social conditions that arise from specific social relations and that it is the social relations than need to be changed and nothing short of the creation of fully human society will be needed to extricate humanity from its illusions.

[campesino]

Yes it increased, but if you see my wording i said STILL which means that they were religious before. Also anti-theism isn't a big part of marxism, we see it as a thing that will go away eventually, and not as a big evil that we must fight against to death. Marx for example thought that calling ourself an atheist was childish:
"if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label “atheism” (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people."

The struggle against god and religion, is a struggle against the system that produced it. I think that just like the state, religion will whither away.

how can you use the word "still" if they did not fight and die and cause the atheist regime to collapse. the albanians became atheist genuinely or just by government proclamation, but they did not have "thousands of years of tradition" swell up inside them and revolt, they just accepted it.
point is people are malleable.

we both agree
racism, nationalism, tribalism are tools of maintaining capitalist control, and we oppose them, so why not oppose religion, which falls into the same category as the rest.

it seems ridiculous to oppose racism, nationalism, tribalism but not religion. Just because there is a majority that has a backward mentality does not mean we should embrace it.

there is a very real difference between a homosexual or a person of color who is discriminated against, these people can't help the way they are. Religion is a choice and choosing religion is backwards. If homosexuality was a choice(which it is not, maybe it is I don't know) homosexuality is not backwards or anti-thetical to Marxism, being colored or born in a certain part of the world is not backwards.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

how can you use the word "still" if they did not fight and die and cause the atheist regime to collapse. the albanians became atheist genuinely or just by government proclamation, but they did not have "thousands of years of tradition" swell up inside them and revolt, they just accepted it.
point is people are malleable.

we both agree
racism, nationalism, tribalism are tools of maintaining capitalist control, and we oppose them, so why not oppose religion, which falls into the same category as the rest.

it seems ridiculous to oppose racism, nationalism, tribalism but not religion. Just because there is a majority that has a backward mentality does not mean we should embrace it.

there is a very real difference between a homosexual or a person of color who is discriminated against, these people can't help the way they are. Religion is a choice and choosing religion is backwards. If homosexuality was a choice(which it is not, maybe it is I don't know) homosexuality is not backwards or anti-thetical to Marxism, being colored or born in a certain part of the world is not backwards.

I do oppose it, but not in the same way as you. I say do away with capitalism, and educate the people about science, religion will dissapear along with racism etc.
It's the circumstances people live in that makes them religious, do away with those circumstances and religion will disapear.

[campesino]

I do oppose it, but not in the same way as you. I say do away with capitalism, and educate the people about science, religion will dissapear along with racism etc.
It's the circumstances people live in that makes them religious, do away with those circumstances and religion will disapear.
@Negative Creep
very true, I agree.
@everyone else in general
I'm just saying that if we have an enemy being oppressed we should not go liberate or support that enemy.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

@Negative Creep
very true, I agree.
@everyone else in general
I'm just saying that if we have an enemy being oppressed we should not go liberate or support that enemy.

You don't get it, religion isn't an enemy. Capitalism is. Religion has no place in a socialist society, but it is part of our traditions, and it has no use calling it an enemy. It is something that will eventually disappear, in socialism. I'm not saying that we shouldn't oppose it, nor that I think it is compatible with communism, but I think we should oppose racist fucks burning a mosque. Because, they either did it out of religious reasons, or out of racism. Just as bad.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Man I wish Franz Fanonipants was still here, he'd have a field day with you


I miss him. One of my favorite posters on here.




As for not participating in a struggle against oppression because of the identity attached to people being targeted (sex, gender expression/sexual orientation, ethnic/national, religious/non-religious, homeless/foreclosed etc...), it is ridiculous.

being a worker is not being part of a monolithic Mario-looking entity. The majority of people on this planet are non-possessing people (worker or peasant) and the same goes for every social category that is not generally class oriented.

To say that you would not stand with Sikhs because they are religious is asinine and just as much anti-worker as standing with those who attack them. To say you would not stand with Indigenous peoples of North and South America is the same as standing with colonizers and those in 'white' society. (and by white i mean ruling class, not skin color)

Lenin was not in favor of religion, but did the bolsheviks attack and slander the people of central asia becasue they were muslim, the people of the far east because they were animists or tengrists, or the people of western russia because they were christian? No! They, as we should, treat religion as a personal matter and that politics are a social matter. Political religion (like the embedding of the church in the state) is reactionary which is why the bolsheviks attacked the church and why communists of that time and before attacked the church. It was hand in hand with the ruling class and served as a tool of oppression.

When the Chinese Red Army went to the far western provinces, they formed Muslim army units and provided what muslim chinese needed and educated the army units working with them on islam and what things are haram. Not to pander, but to understand that it is a private issue and that the muslim chinese were just as oppressed as the han chinese or any other chinese who was not in the position of the ruling class.




militant anti-theism is bullshit and serves liberal individualism.

[#FF0000]

religion is a relic that should be done away with,

I'm sure that'll happen when people don't live in conditions that would require them to grasp for anything that makes life more livable.


those who know the dangers of following certain religions in hostile places, have made their decision, why should they be protectedsays campesino, casually strolling by Buchenwald.

I mean yo argumentum ad hilterum but that was so fuckin obvious that i am shocked you didn't think "oh wow i'm going to look like an idiot if i say this"

[#FF0000]

I'm just saying that if we have an enemy being oppressed we should not go liberate or support that enemy.

we are saying you are wrong in automatically putting every religious person in the 'enemies' column

[Prof. Oblivion]

the people can easily become atheist, there is no need to "co-opt" religions. people only follow religion because the ruling class encourage it, most people will abandon their religion as soon as an atheist regime comes in power.

This is obviously disproven by history.



marxism is anti-thetical to religion.

Marxism as a dogma, as you are applying it, is like any other religion.



we must be genuine, if we oppose reaction then we should announce it.

You are dealing in absolutes, which has no basis in reality.


in an atheist regime atheism increased, in a capitalist regime religiosity increased.

Atheism has increased in Britain under a "capitalist regime" over the past couple of decades.

Your arguments aren't very well thought out. It seems as if you're more interested in sniping your opponents than developing your understanding.

[Terminator X]

@Terminator X

what do you think of the statement

I don't support reaction at all, but if it makes someone feel better about their life to go to a fascist/nationalist/tea party etc. meeting once a week, then who the fuck am I to say they can't?

this is liberalism.

Actually, the liberals I know are some of the biggest Islamophobes out there. They're fine with bombings in Muslim countries because they blindly support Obama and fighting "terrorists". Also, 90% of the liberal news sites after the Sikh shooting took the "they were simply mistaken for Muslims" angle, which was nauseating.

[Beeth]

Actually, the liberals I know are some of the biggest Islamophobes out there. They're fine with bombings in Muslim countries because they blindly support Obama and fighting "terrorists". Also, 90% of the liberal news sites after the Sikh shooting took the "they were simply mistaken for Muslims" angle, which was nauseating.

I agree. It annoys the hell out of me. They make it sound like it's okay if it had been Muslims. What's worse, I know many Hindus/Sikhs who fall for this and think: see, they don't hate us, they only hate Muslims. As if that makes it okay ...

[Silvr]

Can capitalism survive without racism. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive without patriarchy. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive with responsible environmental protection. Yes it can. Will these things happen under capitalism. It seems highly unlikely maybe even impossible. But that's a different question and is not dependent on whether capitalism as a mode of production can continue to exist.

I am not even going to address this, because it has nothing to do with any of my comments in this thread.


So if capitalism can exist without these things then these are reforms.What are reforms? Being against sexism, racism, and religious persecution are not examples of reforms....

It really is a strawman to say that just because we won't campaign and organize around these things that we don't want them or that we oppose them. Talk about a strawman! It really cannot get much more ironic than that. I have said nothing about "campaigning" for anything. That has not been a part of the discussion here at all, and you clearly have no idea what my opinions about such things are either.


It's just that we realize that they are improvements to capitalism, not a threat to capitalism itself. It's like if you asked me what's better state capitalism or free market capitalism. I'd probably take state capitalism any day over the shit we've got at the moment. However I would still oppose both equally as both are capitalism. I'm about abolishing capitalism not improving it or making it run better.Once again, what you are talking about has literally nothing at all to do with the original post or any comment I have made in this thread.

Maybe it would help you to reread the original post. This is not a thread about the merits or non-merits of fighting for reforms. Its about the original poster literally just not giving a fuck if religious minorities are violently attacked and persecuted and apparently even massacred, simply on the basis that they are religious. That is the issue here. I am not arguing that we should organize liberal campaigns to fight for reforms or any such thing. I am saying that the original poster's attitude is completely antithetical to a communist outlook.


I hope that helps explain it.Not at all, though. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm sure that'll happen when people don't live in conditions that would require them to grasp for anything that makes life more livable.

Well that's the thing isn't it. The problem with militant atheism is that it sees religion in an idealistic way: it's just a bunch of bad antiquated ideas sticking around.

Really the issue is much more dynamic and Marx expresses it well in his "Opiate of the masses/Soul of a soulless world" passage. In non-theocratic countries, people generally turn to religion because it's a refuge from an otherwise alienating world.

If religious communities, particularly marginalized ones or religions attached to an oppressed group are a refuge from the general alienation and lack of control in capitalism combined with being a ignored or maligned ethnic/religious group, then attacks on that group either from racists or ideological attacks from leftists are likely to make people even more insular and feel even more like their community is the only safe-haven.

So in practice it's idiotic to say to 1930s eastern European immigrants, we'll only support your strike or stand up to antisemitism, if you drop your antiquated supernatural beliefs. We'll only organize against antisemitism when the attacks are on supposed cultural traits associated with Jews.

It's an abstract and idealistic debate. In practice it makes no sense from the perspective of class struggle. Yes religions are typically a conduate of ruling class ideas about the world... but so are public schools and TV and movies and radio and literature and Museums and on and on. The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of it's rulers... why would religion exist outside of that?

So do people turn to religion BECAUSE they decided to reject science and want repressive social rules? I doubt it's really ever like that: people turn to religion for a "code that makes sense" or "answers to problems in life" or for community or because they were born into it. It's a false sanctuary, a false answer to the question of why is there suffering and why does the world seem unfair, but we won't be able to offer a better answer by out-proselyting religious organizations on the basis of materialism vs. spiritualism. Because for one thing they are much more organized and entrenched but for another on the basis of ideas alone... heaven and some "better organized and more democratic society" are just about the same in most people's minds.

So how to over come that is not arguing over ideas, but actually organizing in the material world. If people can organize and fight and win more power on the job or more respect in the community, then they don't have to sigh when they see injustice and think, "well God works in mysterious ways" or "we just weren't meant to know why..." or "there'll be justice in the next world". When working class communities organize their blocks, they won't need to find spiritual community as a sanctuary from the atomized and competitive and mean and suspicious atmosphere of life in modern capitalism.



2. the new consciousness will come from class struggle, when the poor wake up as a class and see how they are getting shafted by the bourgeoisie and its tools of religion, nationalism. the driving force of class struggle will not be fighting oppression, but hatred of the bourgeoisie. Hostility towards the upper class is what will motivate the socialist movement, not anti-oppression. My question was how will this consiousness come about, you say through class struggle but then say this will be because workers will "wake up". In other words, workers will become conscious when they become conscious.

The other contradiction in this argument is that how are worker's supposed to rise up in conditions of oppression where workers blame eachother? Fascists and the Minutemen hate the bourgeois.... because they allow immigrants into the country to work and don't do enough to put X-group "in their place".

If workers are going to collectively run society, they can't ignore specific oppressions and divisions within the class. There will be no revolution workers can be split up and pitted against each-other and this has killed many strikes and uprisings in the past. If oppression of anyone goes unchallenged by militant workers, then unemployed black people with say, "fuck you, there's 50% unemployment here", immigrants with minority religions will say, "why should we listen to you who shit on our beliefs and culture just like the fascists". As long as, for one example, racism exists, there will be a tendency for oppressed group members to identify as that oppressed group before identifying on a class level. The class movement needs to intervine in these struggles to present a working class solution for oppression otherwise these movements are going to tend to represent the interests of the more wealthy and non-working class sections of the oppressed movement and they can't effectively fight oppression because they are tied to the system that maintains and needs it.

Just like causing working oppressed people to have an identification with petty-bourgeois people of that same oppressed group, it's because of these specific oppressions that there is a tendency for the oppressed minority to identify the whole majority group in society to be their enemy, not just the rulers. It's when, for example, white racism was highest that the ideas of Graveyism became popular, it's when the white backlash to the early Civil Rights movement happened that the NOI gained a larger following (both for their reactionary ideas and the militant ideas that began to develop with people like Malcolm X). Also not challenging oppression on priciple also makes it harder to fight divisions and chauvanism within the working class. Again it becomes like with religious people: "oh you have bad ideas... change them because mine are better". It's idealist. These things need to be fought in the streets and workplaces and schools, not in the mind. It's when the workers movement and radical organizations walked the walk and began to take on oppression rather than just economic issues that serious challenges were possible and workers could begin to see and fight for their common class interests.

[Igor]

I'm just saying that if we have an enemy being oppressed we should not go liberate or support that enemy.

This is just fucking bizarre because I hope you do realize that most people going to churches, mosques or whatever are working class people. Not exactly our enemy, or I'm getting this being a leftist thing really wrong.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Lenin went to churches, only for debates though:

“He [Lenin]visited eating houses and churches. In English churches the service is usually followed by a short lecture and a debate. Ilyich was particularly fond of those debates, because ordinary workers took part in them. He scanned the newspapers for notices of working-class meetings in some out-of-the-way district, where there were only rank-and-file workers from the bench – as we say now – without any pomp and leaders. These meetings were usually devoted to the discussion of some question or project, such as a garden-city scheme. Ilyich would listen attentively, and afterwards say joyfully: "They are just bursting with socialism! If a speaker starts talking rot a worker gets up right away and takes the bull by the horns, shows up the very essence of capitalism." It was the rank and-file British worker who had preserved his class instinct in face of everything, that Ilyich always relied upon.”
-N. Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin

Workers in churches aren't enemies, and should be defended, when they are attacked by racists.

[campesino]

@ Jimmie Higgins
people can stop being religious, but people can't stop being black. No where do i promote racism.

all i'm saying is fuck religious freedom, and lets hate on the economic system more. lets no do the jobs of "liberal" parties. such as support gay marriage, support marijuana legalization, support support affirmative action, protect birth control for women(i agree with all these things.)

but the role of the socialist is class struggle. the liberal reforms will happen regardless if we support them or not.

In the civil rights movement, minorities should have been radicalized against the capitalist system rather than being told to pursue a set of reforms.

supporting reforms =/= supporting class struggle.

[Igor]

@ Jimmie Higgins
people can stop being religious, but people can't stop being black. No where do i promote racism.

all i'm saying is fuck religious freedom, and lets hate on the economic system more. lets no do the jobs of "liberal" parties. such as support gay marriage, support marijuana legalization, support support affirmative action, protect birth control for women(i agree with all these things.)

but the role of the socialist is class struggle. the liberal reforms will happen regardless if we support them or not.

In the civil rights movement, minorities should have been radicalized against the capitalist system rather than being told to pursue a set of reforms.

supporting reforms =/= supporting class struggle.

You're backpedaling a lot here, and it shows. The OP is pretty clear about how this thread wasn't about not supporting liberal reforms, this thread was about you not giving two shits about attacks on religious people and their active persecution. These are two quite distinct things.

[campesino]

I've stated my beliefs and have explained them very well. it may not convince you, but it is my logic and works for me. I will stop replying, i don't think there is more i can say to explain myself.

I say religion is anti-thetical to communism, i get told it is not. OK whatever.
I say protecting religious workers, just because they are workers is akin to protecting nationalist/racist workers just because they are workers. i get told that religion is not comparable; this is probably an extension of religion not being anti-thetical to marxism. OK whatever

these are irreconcilable differences.

[Igor]

I've stated my beliefs and have explained them very well. it may not convince you, but it is my logic and works for me. I will stop replying, i don't think there is more i can say to explain myself.

I say religion is anti-thetical to communism, i get told it is not. OK whatever.
I say protecting religious workers, just because they are workers is akin to protecting nationalist/racist workers just because they are workers. i get told that religion is not comparable; this is probably an extension of religion not being anti-thetical to marxism. OK whatever

these are irreconcilable differences.

yeah well my point was more like idc if what you do with your private life is "antithetical to marxism" as long as it doesn't bother other people and if you don't think active persecution of people for shit like that is a problem, you're a dick. i generally attempt to be a fucking human being first, only then a marxist but you seem to have it other way around which is fucked up

[citizen of industry]

You're backpedaling a lot here, and it shows. The OP is pretty clear about how this thread wasn't about not supporting liberal reforms, this thread was about you not giving two shits about attacks on religious people and their active persecution. These are two quite distinct things.

Seems like forward pedaling to me. I'd guess the OP was made after a knee-jerk reaction to a documentary, and the post you are responding to was made after discussion and analysis. I think it's better to address the points in latest post rather than ignoring it on the grounds it isn't identical to the OP. On top of that, the title of the OP in part was "advocacy of liberal reforms," so yes, the OP was about "not supporting liberal reforms."

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think it is important to fight against the particular reactionary social institutions which religion enforces, like patriarchy, state faith, and interfaith violence. Religion itself is not an institution worth fighting because people are religious for their own psychological and social reasons. Marx pointed out how socio-economic suffering drives them to faith, and certainly a person's own existential anxiety and self-doubt can also drive them to faith. Some atheist militant simply cannot change that fact by force.

Now, religion informs people as to what is the most valuable to their life and brings a sense of unity. This is something precious to religious people of all classes including the working class.

Just because something is a liberal issue, doesn't mean it shouldn't also be an issue for socialists. Access to birth control frees women's sexuality, freedom to dress as you like prevents a cultural elite from imposing their standard, language freedom allows linguistic minorities to speak their mother tongue, sexual freedom allows homosexuals to realize their own deep personal desires ... of course, we could just adopt North Korean style "socialism" where there are state sanctioned dress styles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_the_socia list_lifestyle)! No jeans allowed and short hair for men!

People's particular beliefs of the divine are not at all a problem, the real problems are the manifestations of patriarchy and religious violence that become allowed. Freeing people to chose themselves as long as they are not using the religion as a pretext for their own reactionary activities is advantageous in their lives, as it allows them to keep a community of faith which reflects the concerns of their lives and allows them to embrace a tradition which speaks to them. The liberals are right here because no social harm comes from this. Where the social harm comes from, and where the liberals are wrong, is in the belief that patriarchy and faith-based bigotry are themselves a part of people's "freedom". I don't have a problem with a Buddhist meditation center, a small community run christian Church or a Sikh temple for immigrants, however institutions like sexist megachurches should be countered.

If you take anti-liberalism too far, you will make the sorts of absurd decisions like those made in Cuba and the USSR to ban homosexuality, or the banning of abortion in the USSR, or the banning of a woman's choice in China.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I don't see why you bring Korea up, they have freedom of religion:
https://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/pongsu-church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondoist_Chongu_Party

Buddhism is also still a thing there, and there is a Orthodox Church but to my knowledge that is only really used by Russian tourists.
I would say they don't do enough against religion in this case,

[Igor]

I don't see why you bring Korea up, they have freedom of religion:
https://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/pongsu-church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondoist_Chongu_Party

Buddhism is also still a thing there, and there is a Orthodox Church but to my knowledge that is only really used by Russian tourists.
I would say they don't do enough against religion in this case,

existence of organized religion and churches doesn't exactly mean freedom of religion

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've stated my beliefs and have explained them very well. it may not convince you, but it is my logic and works for me. I will stop replying, i don't think there is more i can say to explain myself.

I say religion is anti-thetical to communism, i get told it is not. OK whatever.
I say protecting religious workers, just because they are workers is akin to protecting nationalist/racist workers just because they are workers. i get told that religion is not comparable; this is probably an extension of religion not being anti-thetical to marxism. OK whatever

these are irreconcilable differences.

Marx is criticizing you from beyond the grave:


I requested further that religion should be criticised in the framework of criticism of political conditions rather than that political conditions should be criticised in the framework of religion, since this is more in accord with the nature of a newspaper and the educational level of the reading public; for religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself. Finally, I desired that, if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label “atheism” (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people.

Religion is a reflection of the world we live in. Baptist Christians used their religion to apologize and excuse Jim-Crow at the same time that Baptist Christians used their religion to condemn Jim-Crow. They both believed the same stories and imaginary things... but what was different was not the ideas, it was who the Baptists were and their relation to the real situation in the US Jim Crow south. So as Marx said, religion is not a "thing in of itself", but a reflection of other things going on in society.

If we want to get rid of irrational ideas and supernatural ideas, then the world has to change to be a world that is reasonable. As long as people's lives are chaos and they have no control, some are going to be drawn to supernatural explanations. Why don't people pray for good harvest generally anymore? Is it because someone explained that raid doesn't come from the chants of bearded men? Or was it because more reliable agricultural techniques and surpluses were developed?

So changing minds in general doesn't come before changing the material reality. The alternative is a Sisyphean struggle to "out-talk" bible-thumpers or "out-reason" ideas that are specifically based on faith (non-reason)! It won't happen - anyone who's tried debating a proselytizer should realize what a loosing proposition this approach would be. The other alternative is to force people to stop practicing... which is anti-Marxist and anti-communist if we are interested in SELF-emancipation.

As for the comparison of religion and nationalism or racism, there's just no comparison. For one thing, reactionary ideologies which are organized around a religion are what? Double-racism? If a church is making homophobic statements, then we shouldn't consider that abstract "religious freedom" but we also shouldn't attack them for believing in an imaginary sky-person when the real political issue is their support of repression against real people here on earth! The problem with Fred Phelps isn't that he believes that "God Hates Fags", the problem is that HE hates LGBT folks and is trying to harass and intimidate people and reinforce a 2nd class social status for people!

But homophobia or any reactionary idea related to organized religions doesn't exist only within those religious ideologies... in most modern states that aren't theocracies, it exists just as much in secular settings. So the religious idea isn't the issue, the support for specific reactionary ideas IS the issue.

What is so unique about religion that we must attack it specifically? Idealism is rampant in our society regardless of it being in religious or just pseudo-scientific form. Reactionary ideas take religious as well as secular form. So what is so unique?

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the civil rights movement, minorities should have been radicalized against the capitalist system rather than being told to pursue a set of reforms.
Who told "minorities" to do what?

The leadership and aims of the early civil rights movement were pretty-bourgois (liberal) in scope. Even in these terms they were modest at first. But as the struggle began winning, who supported these struggles? Large portions of the working class. Why? Because SOMEONE was at least standing up to a kind of oppression that impacted the vast majority of blacks (who by the Civil Rights era were workers mostly).

So specific oppression creates a natural cross-class identification because while black workers and black business owners may experience anti-black racism differently, they are being restricted not specifically on a class-basis, but specifically on a racial basis. On the whole though this system of control "racism" isn't aimed at controlling the tiny percentage of rich black people, but controlling that vast majority of farming (in the South) and working (in the cities) black folks. And on an even larger scale this system of control against specific groups is in order to maintain the whole class system and keep people set against each-other.

But what happened as the movement developed? Were blacks in the urban north happy to settle for people they didn't know hundreds of miles away getting to drink in drinking fountains, were they happy to settle with the end of Jim Crow, which they were repeatedly assured by Northern White Liberal polticians "didn't exist in the North"?

No, they began to organize along their concerns, specifically black, but black-working class concerns. The first sign is increased combativity in the North, the popularity in New York and Detroit for the militant (and often class-rooted) arguments of Malcolm X, a more vocal dissatisfaction with the limitations of the liberal southern movement for more access by middle-class blacks to colleges and white institutions. Then by Malcolm's assassination, he was beginning to draw parallels to Cuba and other National Liberation struggles... still not working class politics, but militant and opposed to Liberalism. And a year later urban black populations begin rebelling in major riots... Harlem in 64, Watts 65 and then each Summer other cities exploded in mass-anger by working class people. The complains? Was it "wanting to go to white colleges?" No. It was over police violence and repression, against slumloards, against limited access to jobs and urban infrastructure: working class demands. And around this time is when the concept of Black power emerged - it was mixed because Black Power meant revolutionary liberation to some and "black-business/politicians" to others. But this atmosphere created the Black Panther movement as well as black anti-racist struggles in unions. And this in turn helped give confidence to women and gay liberation movement, to Latino and Asian movements. Again the politics were mixed and the movements eventually were defeated and went into retreat, but I think it shows the potential. Had there been an influential revolutionary organization with some trust before all this developed, they could have rallied the working class side of the struggle against oppression on a class basis which not only would have strengthened the revolutionaries, but it would have strengthened the fight against reforms because it would be rooted in actual class, rather than confused by (often opposing) cross-class interests.

supporting reforms =/= supporting class struggle.Strawman=/=Good Argument.

I'm with Luxembourg on this. If you support a fight against oppression in order to win equality under the law, then your aims are reformist and you will tend to draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions and engage in forms of struggle which don't help the class struggle (such as court battles which put specialists and Lawyers, not workers in the protagonist role of struggle... leading to bureaucracy in the movement and middle class politics and all sorts of other things). If you engage in struggles for reforms in order to ORGANIZE workers and help workers win gains and confidence through class struggle - in order to help the class learn how to defend itself from the repression of our rulers in order to eventually overthrow the present order and rule themselves... then that's not reformism, that's revolutionary politics and strategy.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't see why you bring Korea up, they have freedom of religion:
https://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/pongsu-church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondoist_Chongu_Party

Buddhism is also still a thing there, and there is a Orthodox Church but to my knowledge that is only really used by Russian tourists.
I would say they don't do enough against religion in this case,

Because they are an illiberal country. They may have some "limited freedom of religion" but their dress code is not liberal. I was making a point about the OP's rejection of anything at all remotely "liberal", not anything specific about their religious freedom (although they hardly have a great deal of religious freedom either, even if they allow some people to attend various sects.)

[Prof. Oblivion]

all i'm saying is fuck religious freedom, and lets hate on the economic system more. lets no do the jobs of "liberal" parties. such as support gay marriage, support marijuana legalization, support support affirmative action, protect birth control for women(i agree with all these things.)

This is economic reductionism. The struggle for socialism is a political and social struggle as well. To limit the struggle to economic demands is implicit reformism.



supporting reforms =/= supporting class struggle.

Your conclusion presumes an absolutist dichotomy, as if idealism and opportunism were the only choices.