'State Atheism'

[Taters]

What were the USSR's and the PRC's attitudes towards religion and, in a hypothetical proletarian state, how would it be dealt with today as compared to those nations?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What about non-state non-theism? The only thing as annoying as a fundamentalist christian or muslim is some pretentious atheist who seems to think that all the problems in the world stem from the beliefs of religious people.

The USSR and PRC took varying attitudes to religion at varying times, depending on the needs of the state apparatus at that moment. It was legal to believe in whatever god you wanted, but religious organization and congregation was not always easy.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Militant atheism is a bane to communists.
Religion is not something to be abolished. It's a sort of ideology with a specific historicity that corresponds to class society. Like all ideology, religion is our reaction against alienation from the human community. We try futilely to find direction and belonging in a world without any by submitting to a great idea.
End alienation, and you pull the base for religion out from under it. In theory, religion would wither away in a revolutionary society, but not be directly abolished.
I have trouble with anyone who thinks it's the job of a revolutionary state to reform society in it's own image, to make society conform to the state's own ideals. Once that starts happening you know a revolution is dead.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

You're getting the reactions you're getting because state atheism under Lenin morphed into state anti-theism under Stalin and Mao. The USSR was initially lenient towards religious practice (although Marxist partisans were expected not to appeal to divinity), but this devolved into Stalinist state oppression.

[Lokomotive293]

Militant atheism is a bane to communists.
Religion is not something to be abolished. It's a sort of ideology with a specific historicity that corresponds to class society. Like all ideology, religion is our reaction against alienation from the human community. We try futilely to find direction and belonging in a world without any by submitting to a great idea.
End alienation, and you pull the base for religion out from under it. In theory, religion would wither away in a revolutionary society, but not be directly abolished.
I have trouble with anyone who thinks it's the job of a revolutionary state to reform society in it's own image, to make society conform to the state's own ideals. Once that starts happening you know a revolution is dead.

I think you're forgetting a little just how powerful organized religion was in the past, and still is in many parts of the world, and especially the role it had in the fight against socialism. I'm not saying people can't be religious and have progressive views, I'm saying that the church as an institution, be it Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox (or other) is a major pillar of the capitalist system. So, don't lock up people for their beliefs, but institute strict separation of church and state, expropriate the church, and promote atheism.

[Nevsky]

You're getting the reactions you're getting because state atheism under Lenin morphed into state anti-theism under Stalin and Mao. The USSR was initially lenient towards religious practice (although Marxist partisans were expected not to appeal to divinity), but this devolved into Stalinist state oppression.

Wasn't Stalin always criticized by the trots and ultra-lefts of being too socially conservative? That he didn't fight old traditions sufficiently? Some religious people even uphold Stalin as an icon, together with christian saints. I think that always blaming everything on Stalin is a bit too easy.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Wasn't Stalin always criticized by the trots and ultra-lefts of being too socially conservative? That he didn't fight old traditions sufficiently? Some religious people even uphold Stalin as an icon, together with christian saints. I think that always blaming everything on Stalin is a bit too easy.

That's what I've heard as well. I thought the state atheism was more of a Hoxha thing and that Stalin basically brought back the Orthodox church and was criticised in (for example) Animal Farm with Napolean allowing the raven Moses to return and indoctrinate the animals.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

You're getting the reactions you're getting because state atheism under Lenin morphed into state anti-theism under Stalin and Mao. The USSR was initially lenient towards religious practice (although Marxist partisans were expected not to appeal to divinity), but this devolved into Stalinist state oppression.
I thought Lenin was more oppressive towards religious organizations, churches, etc, than Stalin. No?
I know Lenin had many churches closed down and turned into other things, and like Nevsky said, Stalin was known for being more socially conservative.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I think revolutionaries today forget what a radical and revolutionary force religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths, can be. Think back the the the Yellow Turban Rebellion, Tyler's 1381 uprising, Munster's peasant wars in the H.R.E., the proto-communist Diggers in the civil war, Methodists in the old Labour party, or most recently liberation theology, orthe political Islam of the Iranian Revolution, all challenges to the social order of the time from a religious world view. If we take Christianity back to its roots, it is unashemedly revolutionary and egalitarian, meerely currupted by the state. Religion has the potential, especially in an autonomous Marxist, or left anarchist context, to be a very useful tool for the revolution.

"When Adam delf and Eve span, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_%28priest%29#cite_note-3)Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty."

[Old Bolshie]

I see many people here taking theoretical stances on the relation between the state and religion which are all very nice but let's get practical:

Religion has been the most powerful and fierceness reactionary institution throughout History. I just need to remember the Russian Civil War or the Spanish Civil War to give two of the most well-known historical examples. From the Bolsheviks in Russia to the anarchists in Spain the Church was always one of their main enemies and targets of their struggle.

A Proletarian revolution will always meet resistance from religious institutions which will be needed to be countered just like all the other counter-revolutionary elements.

[Rafiq]

In Communist countries, religion carried social and systemic leverage as none of them were previously countries with complete capitalist relations. In Russia, for example, the Orthodox Church was an institution which acted as like an ideological arm of feudalism. In Eastern territories, mosques also carried a similiar purpose, i.e. They protected the previous order. In Albania, religious organizations re asserted the hegemony of backward tribal customs, feudalism, etc.

As Communists our aim in that regard has always been short, simple and modest. Religious institutions are enemies of the revolution and should be treated as such. Religion is something allowed to be kept private, but that is it. But today in western countries it should not be such a problem. The problem resides in the Middle East, and southern Asia. Some kind of atheist crusade would be a naive and blunderous affair, but so would self determination, i.e. Self determination of the muslim ruling class.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Althusser]

"Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution."

-Lenin (November 1917)

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I should have been more specific. Sure, Stalin was more friendly to the conservative establishment, but he destroyed the rights of religious minorities in one way or another. See: Jews.

[one10]

Religions are institutions that are both detrimental to humanity and communist revolution. Abolishing such institutions is necessary if a communist revolution is to be progressive and successful.

During the dictatorship of the proletariat, I see it as vital for the state to promote atheism and the study of the social sciences. Anthropology is an excellent field of study that would give the population a better understanding on human origins, rather than the fallacies of religion.

Capitalism and religion have alienated humans from nature. Both are to blame for the current state of humanity.

[Comrade Alex]

State atheism was heavily implemented during mao and Stalin its the only flaw we have in Marxism Marx himself said that thier must be freedom of religion
However toward the end of maos leadership tensions eased and during world war 2 Stalin allowed religion to return and from then on religion had a love hate relationship with the state however not all communist nation's were hostile towards religion Vietnam and laos allowed Buddhism to be practiced east Germany had a Mormon temple and Yugoslavia had 5 religions openly practised
As for the modern times all true socialist nation's will always have freedom of religion

[Rafiq]

"Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution."

-Lenin (November 1917)

To be honest this was nothing short of pragmatic and strategical.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rurkel]

While I think that some Bolshevik actions towards religion were quite excessive, it's worth pointing out that in pre-revolutionary Russia, the Church was a de-facto State department. And if you act like a state department, well, you can't complain too much when you're treated as such, can you?

[Astarte]

In the PRC today the CPC actively squashes spiritual movements for a very specific reason - essentially every popular uprising before the Nationalists and Maoists (who themselves even used language with heavily spiritualized innuendos) were either directly or indirectly based on spirituality or folk religion.

Organized religion can be "dealt with" by marginalizing and even completely alienating its apparatuses from state power - in Western Europe today this much has even already been accomplished. As far as non-centralized spirituality on a personal or even a benign nascent cultic variety (which does not seek state power), I think the state apparatus would have a hard time actively oppressing it unless it was one of a Bonapartist variety which was already fairly alienated from society.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To be honest this was nothing short of pragmatic and strategical.

The phrasing seems excessive, but the protection of oppressed religions had always been a part of the programme of Russian social democracy; Bonch-Bruevich in particular devoted much of his time to exposing and agitating against the oppression of Old Believers and such.

That said, while there are minority, oppressed religions, religion in general is an integral part of bourgeois and even semifeudal ideology, and should be fought as such (fought ideologically and through education and propaganda). Of course, I imagine most clerics would agitate against the progressive agenda of a proletarian state anyway, and would have to be dealt with as reactionary agitators.

[#FF0000]

"Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution."

-Lenin (November 1917)

Do you have a source for this tho

[Hexen]

If we take Christianity back to its roots, it is unashemedly revolutionary and egalitarian, meerely currupted by the state. Religion has the potential, especially in an autonomous Marxist, or left anarchist context, to be a very useful tool for the revolution."

Actually, Christianity's roots is Judahism which happens to be a footnote of a much larger text which in turn is Hebrew Polytheism...

I think we need to go back to Polytheism.....

Or maybe better, why not Hinduism?

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Actually, Christianity's roots is Judahism which happens to be a footnote of a much larger text which in turn is Hebrew Polytheism...

I tend to agree with the likes of Bauer and other left-Hegalians that Christianity owes more Roman and Greek influences than Jewish ones (Platonic metaphysics, Stoic ethics, the cynic like characteristics of the Christ figure, Parmenidean views on the one et cetera, vs. the materialistic Judaism of Israel).


Or maybe better, why not Hinduism?

Are we getting a caste system along with it?

[Raúl Duke]

I think revolutionaries today forget what a radical and revolutionary force religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths, can be. Think back the the the Yellow Turban Rebellion, Tyler's 1381 uprising, Munster's peasant wars in the H.R.E., the proto-communist Diggers in the civil war, Methodists in the old Labour party, or most recently liberation theology, [etc]While there's something to be said about some leftists "all or nothing" view on religion and so forth...

I find this line of argument morbidly humorous. Sure, there are progressive examples but for every progressive example there's probably at least double of reactionary examples coming from organized religion. We cannot forget that. We should stop this "religion is total evil" or "religion can be all nice and/or reformed" and be a bit more pragmatic and astute; deal with the issue of religion in a case by case basis, in regards to religious organizations.

In regards to people's beliefs, people can believe whatever they want. Just make sure the government is secular.

[Hexen]

I tend to agree with the likes of Bauer and other left-Hegalians that Christianity owes more Roman and Greek influences than Jewish ones (Platonic metaphysics, Stoic ethics, the cynic like characteristics of the Christ figure, Parmenidean views on the one et cetera, vs. the materialistic Judaism of Israel).

I'm talking about that Christianity has it's roots and it's a offshot of Judaism which is basically the monotheistic worship of the Hebrew God of War, Yahweh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_%28Canaanite_deity%29).


Are we getting a caste system along with it?

Nope, Infact I think the Caste system was a British imperialist invention.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I find this line of argument morbidly humorous. Sure, there are progressive examples but for every progressive example there's probably at least double of reactionary examples coming from organized religion.

I'm just pointing out that religion can have a revolutionary purpose, so we should be open to working with certain groups, I'm not neglecting, nor endorsing, medieval Catholicism or Iranian clerics.


Nope, Infact I think the Caste system was a British imperialist invention.

Muslim travellers spoke about it before the idea of Britain even existed on paper.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think revolutionaries today forget what a radical and revolutionary force religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths, can be. Think back the the the Yellow Turban Rebellion, Tyler's 1381 uprising, Munster's peasant wars in the H.R.E., the proto-communist Diggers in the civil war, Methodists in the old Labour party, or most recently liberation theology, orthe political Islam of the Iranian Revolution, all challenges to the social order of the time from a religious world view.

Tyler and Munster happen to be quite dead, and they have been dead several centuries. Liberation theology has done precisely nothing to the oppressed classes and groups. The revolutionary upswing in Iran quickly dissipated due to the confusion of the Iranian socialists - including the conflation of left and right criticism of the existing order - and the resulting mullah regime is hardly something revolutionary leftists should uphold.

And where are the examples of current progressive struggles inspired by religious doctrine?


If we take Christianity back to its roots, it is unashemedly revolutionary and egalitarian, meerely currupted by the state.

Merely corrupted! With all due respect, you are not talking about the actually existing religions, but some vague "real", "original" Christianity - you treat religious ideology in an idealistic manner, as if it were some sort of ahistorical Platonic form divorced from social and economic context.


Religion has the potential, especially in an autonomous Marxist, or left anarchist context, to be a very useful tool for the revolution.

Useful for what? Spreading confusion and anti-materialism?

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Liberation theology has done precisely nothing to the oppressed classes and groups.

Not entirely true, though I'll admit it hasn't been that succesful, but then again, neither has FARC.


and the resulting mullah regime is hardly something revolutionary leftists should uphold.

My point is we can use this religious energy, and then channel it towards our own ends.


Merely corrupted! With all due respect, you are not talking about the actually existing religions, but some vague "real", "original" Christianity - you treat religious ideology in an idealistic manner, as if it were some sort of ahistorical Platonic form divorced from social and economic context.

No more than Trots treat Russian socialism. Currupted by Stalinist beuracracy et cetera.


And where are the examples of current progressive struggles inspired by religious doctrine?

South America, Britain at the moment (the Anglican left have really taken off with all the austerity measures).


Useful for what? Spreading confusion and anti-materialism?

Well it's easy to motivate a religious population to resist imperialism or capitalism with the gospels or the Hadith, rather than "lol, silly sky geese, god doesn't real, here, have some Lenin". When we've acheived our ends, religion will have serverd its purpose, and simply wither away.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not entirely true, though I'll admit it hasn't been that succesful, but then again, neither has FARC.

That is unfortunate - for the enthusiastic supporters of FARC. It doesn't seem to have any relevance to this discussion. Also, what has liberation theology done for the oppressed?


My point is we can use this religious energy, and then channel it towards our own ends.

"We"? Who are "we"? Not to mention that this notion of religious "energy" as something that can simply be channeled into a progressive cause is suspect at best, and strategies that depend on it have never worked.


No more than Trots treat Russian socialism. Currupted by Stalinist beuracracy et cetera.

First of all, even if "Trots" treat the Russian revolution in an idealist manner, this does not excuse you for smuggling idealist assumptions about some "original" Christianity into your analysis. Second, as usual, your description of "Trot" doctrine is hilariously sectarian; Bolsheviks-Leninists do not think that there existed some "original" Marxism-Leninism that was subsequently corrupted by the evil Stalin, and that we should ignore actually existing M-L movements and parties in favour of this "original" Stalinism. Though quite a few social-democrats do so, usually in order to blame modern M-Ls for everything Stalin did or has been accused of doing.


South America

Where?


Britain at the moment (the Anglican left have really taken off with all the austerity measures).

As if the emergence of one more sect of liberals and social democrats is some great victory for the oppressed.


Well it's easy to motivate a religious population to resist imperialism or capitalism with the gospels or the Hadith, rather than "lol, silly sky geese, god doesn't real, here, have some Lenin". When we've acheived our ends, religion will have serverd its purpose, and simply wither away.

"Our" ends! Who are "we"? Some secret cabal of manipulators, or some sect that will lead the revolution instead of the labouring masses? Treating workers like idiots that can not seriously consider Marxist analysis and that need to be fed religious fairytales in order to do what "we" want might be easy, but it has nothing to do with organising the proletariat to liberate itself.

[hatzel]

If we were to take the USSR as our case-study (and there's not really much choice, to be fair) the closest thing to an achievement of 'state atheism' has been to make religious expression more varied and more zealous. I'll leave it to somebody else to decide whether that should be classed as a 'success,' a 'failure' or something else. Depends what you were hoping for from it, I guess...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Tyler and Munster happen to be quite dead, and they have been dead several centuries. Liberation theology has done precisely nothing to the oppressed classes and groups. The revolutionary upswing in Iran quickly dissipated due to the confusion of the Iranian socialists - including the conflation of left and right criticism of the existing order - and the resulting mullah regime is hardly something revolutionary leftists should uphold.

And where are the examples of current progressive struggles inspired by religious doctrine?


There's a ton in Latin America. Groups that include liberation theologians have had more success in the past 3-4 decades than wholly secular groups. The EZLN in Chiapas had some influence by liberation theology as have many of the other groups active in that part of the world. No, there hasn't been a full scale revolution led by liberation theologians but in case you hadn't checked, there hasn't been a persistent, successful socio-economic revolution that didn't end in bloodsheed, a coup or the eventual reintegration into global Capitalism since ... ever.

The concern with liberation theology is not in its efficacy at organizing the working class but its willingness to allow for other things, like abortion rights, which many liberation theologians would find as exceedingly problematic.


Merely corrupted! With all due respect, you are not talking about the actually existing religions, but some vague "real", "original" Christianity - you treat religious ideology in an idealistic manner, as if it were some sort of ahistorical Platonic form divorced from social and economic context.


To be fair, this is not so different from how Marxists view Marxism - surely we do not argue that the People's Republic of China is a "Marxist" government or the CPUSA is a "Marxist" party in the classical sense even though they call themselves that. So there is a sense of Marxist theory which remains in history but not necessarily sullied by actual Marxists or Marxist institutions.

[Rurkel]

If we were to take the USSR as our case-study (and there's not really much choice, to be fair)
Time for a lecture on Glorious Socialist Albania liberally* peppered with Hoxha quotes, methinks :cool:

*Empathetically NOT in political sense of that word!

[Ismail]

Time for a lecture on Glorious Socialist Albania liberally* peppered with Hoxha quotes, methinks :cool:

*Empathetically NOT in political sense of that word!Hoxha's wife Nexhmije said in 1997 that,

"Perhaps the abolition of religion was excessive,' the Widow finally admitted. 'But Enver had no wish to destroy churches and mosques. It was our Chinese allies, who were the only ones helping us financially and militarily, and the younger members of the Party who forced that on him. Enver and I only wanted Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Catholics to live peaceably side by side. And we were right. We wanted everyone to feel they were just Albanians. And see what is happening now in the Balkans as the result of religious and ethnic conflicts. History will prove us right. Capitalist propaganda described us as backward and introverted. On the contrary, you will come to realise that ours was a modern vision.'"
(Riccardo Orizio. Talk of the Devil: Encounters With Seven Dictators. New York: Walker & Company. 2002. p. 102.)

It's worth noting that unlike the rest of the Balkans, religion played a very divisive role in Albania. If you were a Muslim you were classified as a "Turk" in Ottoman times, if you were an Orthodox Christian you were considered "Greek" by the Church authorities. Only Roman Catholics had a vague status but even this was undermined by the efforts of Italy (including in its Fascist period) and Austria-Hungary to exert control over the country through it, and because the Catholic areas of the north were the most reactionary and backwards.

Greece continued to claim southern Albania as Greek territory until the early 70's, while in the 40's and 50's the Yugoslav Government deported many Kosovar Albanians from their region as "Turks." So the exceptional measures carried out in Albania have to be understood from this angle.

That being said, "The first public mass was celebrated November 4 [1990], in a cemetery chapel in Shkodra, by Simon Jubani, released in 1989 after twenty-six years of imprisonment. The crowd of 5,000 worshipers was made up of Catholics, few of whom could remember this central rite of the Church. Interestingly enough, there were also substantial numbers of Muslims present, most of them apparently unaware of the difference between Christianity and Islam. Here already was a sign of the [anti-religious] campaign's success." - Denis R. Janz, World Christianity and Marxism, 1998, p. 108.

"[Hoxha] encouraged young couples who worked together not to feel ashamed of their feelings, not to be unreasonably dictated to by their elders, decrying the customary use of matchmaker intermediaries (shkuesi). He succeeded in reducing the number of cradle betrothals, as well as marriages between people who had never seen each other. On the very rare occasions where a couple married for love, or married in spite of fictive kinship ties, Enver Hoxha would personally write them a letter of congratulation, praising those involved for breaking out of the bonds of backwardness. In one case of a Catholic boy and Muslim girl who decided to marry on their own accord against the will of their parents, 'Her family broke off all relations with her, but after she had been married for six months they received a letter from Enver Hoxha congratulating them on their daughter's praiseworthy marriage 'throwing aside the intolerance of superstition and faith'.'" - Clarissa de Waal. Albania Today: A Portrait of Post-Communist Turbulence, 2005, pp. 81-82.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There's a ton in Latin America. Groups that include liberation theologians have had more success in the past 3-4 decades than wholly secular groups. The EZLN in Chiapas had some influence by liberation theology as have many of the other groups active in that part of the world.

"Some influence" is horribly vague; has the ideology of the EZLN has been influenced by liberation theology? Those programmatic and ideological statements by the EZLN I have read - admittedly, not many of them - did not reference theology at any point.

However, if you simply wanted to say that the EZLN representatives had at some point made comments sympathetic to liberation theology, such statements are rather common, and mean little.


No, there hasn't been a full scale revolution led by liberation theologians but in case you hadn't checked, there hasn't been a persistent, successful socio-economic revolution that didn't end in bloodsheed, a coup or the eventual reintegration into global Capitalism since ... ever.

Even so, liberation theology does not seem to lead to a rise in meaningful labour militancy, to successful socialist organisation etc. To be quite frank, it does not seem to lead to anything, other than paternalistic statements about "the poor". That, and the accomplishments of the Second International, of the Russian Revolution, etc., should not be ignored, even if they did not directly lead into the communist society.


The concern with liberation theology is not in its efficacy at organizing the working class but its willingness to allow for other things, like abortion rights, which many liberation theologians would find as exceedingly problematic.

That is another point that needs to be raised; religion more often than not spreads bigoted and reactionary views about female liberation, LGBT rights and so on; our confused social democrat would have the labour movement use religious slogans even though they hurt over half of the working class!

But I am sure the "real", "original" Christianity was not misogynist at all, right?


To be fair, this is not so different from how Marxists view Marxism - surely we do not argue that the People's Republic of China is a "Marxist" government or the CPUSA is a "Marxist" party in the classical sense even though they call themselves that. So there is a sense of Marxist theory which remains in history but not necessarily sullied by actual Marxists or Marxist institutions.

Anyone that is at all familiar with Marxism will recognise that the theory has developed over time; if someone urged us to disregard the theories and the practices of the actual Marxist labour movement and only evaluate Marxism through the lens of some "original" Marxism, found probably in the early works of Marx, that has been "corrupted", surely we would all find this childish and unscientific? But the proponents of "original" Christianity want us to do just that; they want to ignore Christianity as it exists, and focus on some idealised version of early Christian doctrine.

And it would be unscientific for us to ignore the implementation of a programmatic point or theory, and its relative success or failure from the standpoint of proletarian emancipation, when evaluating that point or theory. Whether something has been "sullied" or not is a moral question I will graciously leave to the priests; but we can't simply ignore the influence of Marxist theories on the Soviet Union, China, etc., even if we disagree with the particular forms that Marxism had assumed in those states, as I in fact do.

And if we exclude groups and movements as un-Marxist, it should not be simply because we disagree with them - that attitude is ridiculous and unproductive - but because their doctrine clearly diverges from Marxist though, as it is understood by the overwhelming majority on the revolutionary left. I don't see what that has to do with the "pristine", allegedly revolutionary Christianity that some people are selling, and that exists only in their imaginations.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"Some influence" is horribly vague; has the ideology of the EZLN has been influenced by liberation theology? Those programmatic and ideological statements by the EZLN I have read - admittedly, not many of them - did not reference theology at any point.

However, if you simply wanted to say that the EZLN representatives had at some point made comments sympathetic to liberation theology, such statements are rather common, and mean little.


Much of the movement consists of Catholic peasants and Catholic leaders played a significant role in explaining the rebellion to the outside world as well as acting as negotiators. The EZLN itself is an ideological mixture of various different tendencies.



Even so, liberation theology does not seem to lead to a rise in meaningful labour militancy, to successful socialist organisation etc. To be quite frank, it does not seem to lead to anything, other than paternalistic statements about "the poor". That, and the accomplishments of the Second International, of the Russian Revolution, etc., should not be ignored, even if they did not directly lead into the communist society.


What do you base that on? You seem to be trying to prove a negative, which is difficult to do. The fact that liberation theologians ended up in jails during various Latin American "dirty wars" indicates that Leftists in the church were certainly feared by reactionaries.

The accomplishments of the 2nd international and the Russian Revolution shouldn't be ignored but that was ages ago, and we haven't seen more progress from that front in a while.



That is another point that needs to be raised; religion more often than not spreads bigoted and reactionary views about female liberation, LGBT rights and so on; our confused social democrat would have the labour movement use religious slogans even though they hurt over half of the working class!

But I am sure the "real", "original" Christianity was not misogynist at all, right?


To be fair to Christians on this issue, Stalinist governments all over the world sent gay people to labor camps and gulags for their sexual orientation. The idea that homosexuality is bourgeois is no less idiotic than the idea that homosexuality is satanic, but that didn't stop a whole boat load of Marxists from thinking that.

The USSR of course also banned abortion for a while.



Anyone that is at all familiar with Marxism will recognise that the theory has developed over time; if someone urged us to disregard the theories and the practices of the actual Marxist labour movement and only evaluate Marxism through the lens of some "original" Marxism, found probably in the early works of Marx, that has been "corrupted", surely we would all find this childish and unscientific? But the proponents of "original" Christianity want us to do just that; they want to ignore Christianity as it exists, and focus on some idealised version of early Christian doctrine.


The point is that whether or not we interpret those later works of Marxism as being Marxist is that they are within the spirit of Marxism. There are certain core ideas that most people agree are central to it being the ideology it is. The law of value, labor theory, class struggle, a commitment to the interests of the proletariat ... yes the texts and religious institutions bring new ideas into their ideology but like the Marxists, religious people want to say that there is some essential aspect of their faith which people can miss out on.



And it would be unscientific for us to ignore the implementation of a programmatic point or theory, and its relative success or failure from the standpoint of proletarian emancipation, when evaluating that point or theory. Whether something has been "sullied" or not is a moral question I will graciously leave to the priests; but we can't simply ignore the influence of Marxist theories on the Soviet Union, China, etc., even if we disagree with the particular forms that Marxism had assumed in those states, as I in fact do.

I agree with you, but the Christian could acknowledge the impact of Christ's words on the Vatican while remaining critical of just how "Christian" the Vatican really is.



And if we exclude groups and movements as un-Marxist, it should not be simply because we disagree with them - that attitude is ridiculous and unproductive - but because their doctrine clearly diverges from Marxist though, as it is understood by the overwhelming majority on the revolutionary left. I don't see what that has to do with the "pristine", allegedly revolutionary Christianity that some people are selling, and that exists only in their imaginations.

It doesn't exist only in their imagination. The early Christian church had specific doctrines which it followed and which were increasingly forgotten over time. Likewise, Christians can take texts like "The Good Samaritan" and can legitimately argue that racist Christians have missed the basic meaning of that text.

[Ismail]

To be fair to Christians on this issue, Stalinist governments all over the world sent gay people to labor camps and gulags for their sexual orientation. The idea that homosexuality is bourgeois is no less idiotic than the idea that homosexuality is satanic, but that didn't stop a whole boat load of Marxists from thinking that.One of the ironies is that in various places homosexuality was also identified to some extent with religion, with Durruti claiming that Spain's churches were "dens of sodomy" and Albanian materials conflating tribal misogyny (reinforced through religion) with homosexual acts.

The difference is the Bible, as the "word of God," condemns homosexuals to death per its laws. Marxists can have a wrong view of homosexuality just as they can have wrong views on a number of issues relating to insufficient knowledge, like Marx believing in phrenology at a time when it had some "scientific" credentials. Such are signs of the society they lived in and not innate aspects of Marxism. Early Marxists also attempted, however incorrectly, to analyze homosexuality rather than base themselves on religious dogma.


The USSR of course also banned abortion for a while.Krupskaya and the early Bolsheviks had called it an "evil" that socialism would get rid of. Their reasoning had nothing to do with religion though, but with health issues and the absurdities of bourgeois and Tsarist-era society condemning women for seeking abortions in conditions where they were unable to manage families. Even the public debate on abortion in the 30's was characterized by an absence of any "moral" arguments about it.

[conmharáin]

My tankie side wants to tell you that the socialist future is a violently anti-theistic one, but, in all honesty, most religious people I know, even the especially superstitious, don't want much beyond what everyone else wants. For all their fire and brimstone, what they really care about is making ends meet and taking care of the people they love. I'm not going to say I oppose banning religion as an extreme measure, but I don't believe there's much need for that. When people have the freedom to take care of themselves and the ones they love, they tend to lose interest in fucking with everyone else.

[Positivist]

You're getting the reactions you're getting because state atheism under Lenin morphed into state anti-theism under Stalin and Mao. The USSR was initially lenient towards religious practice (although Marxist partisans were expected not to appeal to divinity), but this devolved into Stalinist state oppression.

This is not really true. Lenin initiated a violent campaign against the orthodox church during the civil war due to it's tight ties to the whites and the old regime, and Stalin continued it into the mid-twenties. After that, Stalin was pretty soft on religion formally guaranteeing freedom of conscience in the constitution in 1936 and even allowing the old church to be restored during World War two. Some more aggressive atheist policies followed Stalin's death, but overall intense persecution was limited to the civil war.

[Malesori]

I would think the PLA and Hoxha's approach to Religion in Albania would be a model.

[Ismail]

Indeed, it was Lenin who compared religion to a venereal disease, said that every socialist as a rule is an atheist, deprived clergymen of the ability to vote, used the conditions of famine amongst peasants to sell church valuables for money and who privately wrote that, "The greater number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing for [hoarding wealth in a time of famine], the better. We must teach these people a lesson right now, so that they will not dare even to think of any resistance for several decades." (Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 1996, p. 154.)

By comparison Stalin was telling Hoxha in the late 40's to tone down the anti-religious campaign in Albania. Stalin also had the USSR's Society of the Godless, which was the leading force in the party's anti-religious campaigns, disbanded. Newspapers in the 40's featured Orthodox clergymen and Islamic muftis praising Stalin and saying that God was on his side.

As for China, Hoxha complained in his diary in 1973 that, "The Chinese propaganda openly implies that religion is not combated in China and that is why it speaks about religious celebrations, about Easter, Bairam, about masses and prayers in the churches and mosques in Peking. Hsinhua reported that Bairam was celebrated with pomp in the mosques of Peking and all the ambassadors of the Moslem countries accredited to China took part. The line of showing the world that China is part of the 'third world', that it supports the Arabs and the Moslems and their religion, is continuing! Great men of principle!!!" (Reflections on China Vol. II, 1979, p. 19.)


I have trouble with anyone who thinks it's the job of a revolutionary state to reform society in it's own image, to make society conform to the state's own ideals. Once that starts happening you know a revolution is dead.Unfortunately for you that is precisely the goal of the proletarian revolution. To quote Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm), "Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew." It is rather difficult to get people to understand their objective interests when metaphysical and idealist concepts and the influences of feudal and bourgeois society reign supreme.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Much of the movement consists of Catholic peasants and Catholic leaders played a significant role in explaining the rebellion to the outside world as well as acting as negotiators.

That sounds rather inconsequential; I mean, the rank and file of the various left organisations during the great French bourgeois revolution were Catholics, and certain clerics like the abbé Sieyès acted as spokesmen for the "Third Estate"; does this mean that Catholicism was a progressive force in the French Revolution? Of course not.


What do you base that on? You seem to be trying to prove a negative, which is difficult to do. The fact that liberation theologians ended up in jails during various Latin American "dirty wars" indicates that Leftists in the church were certainly feared by reactionaries.

Students ended up in jails as well; that alone does not make them some significant revolutionary force. I am simply asking for evidence.


To be fair to Christians on this issue, Stalinist governments all over the world sent gay people to labor camps and gulags for their sexual orientation. The idea that homosexuality is bourgeois is no less idiotic than the idea that homosexuality is satanic, but that didn't stop a whole boat load of Marxists from thinking that.

The USSR of course also banned abortion for a while.

Except that no Marxist considers the works of Stalin, Hoxha etc. to be some sort of infallible scripture; modern consistent Marxists-Leninists condemn homophobia and are active in the struggle for LGBT rights. Whereas most religious institutions actively promote persecution of LGBT individuals and of free women.


The point is that whether or not we interpret those later works of Marxism as being Marxist is that they are within the spirit of Marxism. There are certain core ideas that most people agree are central to it being the ideology it is. The law of value, labor theory, class struggle, a commitment to the interests of the proletariat ... yes the texts and religious institutions bring new ideas into their ideology but like the Marxists, religious people want to say that there is some essential aspect of their faith which people can miss out on.

And why are these ideas considered central to Marxism? It can't simply be because they are found in Marx's work; the Feuerbachian language of "species being" is also found in his corpus, but surely no one would suggest that species being is a central concept of Marxism? No; these ideas are central because they have been central to the entire revolutionary Marxist movement.

On the other hand, those "essential aspects" that the adherents of the "true", "original" Christianity extol - Eagleton comes to mind here - are not found in most of the actually existing churches.


I agree with you, but the Christian could acknowledge the impact of Christ's words on the Vatican while remaining critical of just how "Christian" the Vatican really is.

They have no ground for such criticism; the Vatican is Christian according to the manner in which the word "Christian" is commonly used in the relevant community.


It doesn't exist only in their imagination. The early Christian church had specific doctrines which it followed and which were increasingly forgotten over time. Likewise, Christians can take texts like "The Good Samaritan" and can legitimately argue that racist Christians have missed the basic meaning of that text.

This would be the text where Jesus calls the Samaritan woman a dog, demonstrating his detachment from the ethnic chauvinism of his milieu? The point is that no actually existing Christian institution propagates those "forgotten" doctrines, and the adherents of "true Christianity" are well aware of that fact.

Yet they want us to forget about religious backwardness, paternalism, bestial persecution of anyone that does not fit the religious worldview, because of some hopelessly idealist reading of the Christian texts. No, thanks.

[hatzel]

Unfortunately for you that is precisely the goal of the proletarian revolution. To quote Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm), "Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew." It is rather difficult to get people to understand their objective interests when metaphysical and idealist concepts and the influences of feudal and bourgeois society reign supreme.

This quote says absolutely nothing about 'mak society conform to the state's own ideals,' though. This clearly states that it is the revolution itself as a practical movement, and the proletariat's participation in said revolution, which allows it to '[rid] [I]itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew' - it's very clear here that Marx expects this to be a largely self-driven, independent process, not the work of some external force attempting to make the alterations on a social scale (and it's clear KJI's original statement that he is dealing with an external force attempting to reshape society, rather than society reshaping itself through concrete action). If it were in fact possible for a state to make these various alterations, then this couldn't come under the heading 'The Necessity of the Communist Revolution,' nor could it argue against the reformists, who could certainly enact these changes through the state if they just so happened to come into power without a revolution - a possibility which Marx obviously rejects, but it's rejected as a separate issue; not only is a revolution required in order to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but even if it were possible to overthrow them in a non-revolutionary manner, the lack of a practical movement (here synonymous with revolution) amongst the proletariat would preclude the possibility of it developing. Hence this actually backs up KJI's complaint: if there remains a need to 'reform society in [the state's] own image' then - according to this particular quote from Marx - the revolution either didn't take place or was unsuccessful in its aims, one of which must necessarily be to itself allow the transformation of its participants, so to speak, so that they can 'found society anew.' Ergo I think KJI is right to say that this signals the death of the revolution, as Marx himself states that the development of the proletariat 'can only take place in a practical movement,' that is to say, it cannot be conceived of and implemented by any state detached from actual working-class action, which is certainly what is implied in KJI and is advocated by those he is criticising...

[Ismail]

This quote says absolutely nothing about 'mak society conform to the state's own ideals,' though.Probably because it isn't artificially dividing the proletariat with its class dictatorship.


This clearly states that it is the revolution itself as a practical movement, and the proletariat's participation in said revolution, which allows it to '[rid] [I]itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew' - it's very clear here that Marx expects this to be a largely self-driven, independent process, not the work of some external force attempting to make the alterations on a social scale (and it's clear KJI's original statement that he is dealing with an external force attempting to reshape society, rather than society reshaping itself through concrete action).Again, this presupposes an artificial division. Of course for an anarchist this is natural, but for Marxists it isn't. The working-class, which already creates its own culture even before taking power, reshapes society through its control over it. It is the working-class which is given access to all that culture inherited from thousands of years of human history.

There is no "external force," the dictatorship of the proletariat fights against all that is backward and inimical to the construction of socialism and communism. It does not achieve this by administrative decrees, but through continuous propaganda work through all sorts of organizations. In Albania, for instance, Hoxha noted that "it was sufficient for a single spark struck by the revolutionary students of the Durrës 'Naim Frashëri' school, who were inspired by the teachings of the Party, to kindle an immense fire that swept away from the face of the earth all hotbeds of religious obscurantism." (Report on the Role and Tasks of the Democratic Front for the Complete Triumph of Socialism in Albania, 1974, p. 85.)


If it were in fact possible for a state to make these various alterations,It provides the means and protection to carry them out and gives them judicial backing.


nor could it argue against the reformists, who could certainly enact these changes through the state if they just so happened to come into power without a revolutionTo quote Stalin discussing a hypothetical situation with H.G. Wells, "as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners." (Works Vol. 14, 1978, pp. 24-25.)

You cannot uproot religion without uprooting capitalism. You cannot uproot capitalism without its overthrow by the working-class.


if there remains a need to 'reform society in [the state's] own image' then - according to this particular quote from Marx - the revolution either didn't take place or was unsuccessful in its aims, one of which must necessarily be to itself allow the transformation of its participants, so to speak, so that they can 'found society anew.'You are assuming that the proletariat magically and uniformly acquires communist consciousness spontaneously and at once proceeds to the construction of communist society with no need to engage in educational campaigns among those backward elements of the working-class who hold racist, sexist, etc. views which religion often serves as support for.

[one10]

Religion isn't revolutionary, it's that simple. It is the duty of the dictatorship of the proletariat to educate before a classless society is achieved. Therefore, state sponsored atheism is necessary during this stage of a revolution.

[Akshay!]

I'm an atheist, but I don't think we should be so irrational as to say that all religion is bad and that nothing good can ever come out of it. That's simply false.

Religion can be used to do good things, it can also be used to do bad things. I've met a lot of religious people in my life who are also socialists, anarchists, etc.. I've also met a lot of agnostics and atheists in my life who are big fans of Ayn Rand. Religion and socialism are completely unrelated. You can, perhaps, argue that almost all religions are unscientific and irrational etc.. but you can't say that it's impossible to use them for revolutionary ends.

[Rural Comrade]

I'm an atheist, but I don't think we should be so irrational as to say that all religion is bad and that nothing good can ever come out of it. That's simply false.

Religion can be used to do good things, it can also be used to do bad things. I've met a lot of religious people in my life who are also socialists, anarchists, etc.. I've also met a lot of agnostics and atheists in my life who are big fans of Ayn Rand. Religion and socialism are completely unrelated. You can, perhaps, argue that almost all religions are unscientific and irrational etc.. but you can't say that it's impossible to use them for revolutionary ends.

Thank you a person who is sane on the topic of religion and politics. I myself have a religion (don't try to change it) but separate it from my politics. One of my ideals for a society is that it must be secular or else it will become not only oppressive to people who are not believers of the ruling religion but also gives a negative image of those who believe in the ruling religion. Just as workers of one nation do not hate workers of another nation, workers of one religion do not hate workers of other religions.

As for religion in a socialist state and eventually a communist society we must have organised religions stay out of politics and we must have secular education that promotes the sciences. Hopefully like this there will be peac with regards to religion.

[Dropdead]

You're getting the reactions you're getting because state atheism under Lenin morphed into state anti-theism under Stalin and Mao. The USSR was initially lenient towards religious practice (although Marxist partisans were expected not to appeal to divinity), but this devolved into Stalinist state oppression.

The easiest thing you can always think of, blame Stalin.

[Paul Cockshott]

While I think that some Bolshevik actions towards religion were quite excessive, it's worth pointing out that in pre-revolutionary Russia, the Church was a de-facto State department. And if you act like a state department, well, you can't complain too much when you're treated as such, can you?

This is true of many countries today. It is officially part of the state in Britain or Turkey and many European countries levy taxes on peoples wages to pay for it.

[Brutus]

The easiest thing you can always think of, blame Stalin.

He said under Stalin and Mao. He's not really blaming them.
If he is, then that's a gross over simplification.