Can people with a religious belief be classed as Marxists if...?

[Comrade Jacob]

This is at the request of some users on my "can pagans be Marxists" thread.

[BIXX]

I am gonna go ahead and say no, because religion is idealistic, not materialistic. But I would like to hear others' opinions on the subject.

[Quail]

I haven't voted on the poll because I'm not sure. There do exist Christian (and probably other religious) communists (and bafflingly anarchists: "No Gods, No Masters! ... Well except our God"). I don't really know much about it, but I guess if someone had interpreted Jesus' message as "fight for a communist society" and their religion inspired them to become a communist I wouldn't be opposed to working with them, provided that they rejected the hierarchies in religious groups and didn't force their beliefs upon anyone else.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I guess if someone had interpreted Jesus' message as "fight for a communist society" and their religion inspired them to become a communist I wouldn't be opposed to working with them, provided that they rejected the hierarchies in religious groups and didn't force their beliefs upon anyone else.

I agree completely with you that they'd be people to work with, but am I the only one who finds this weird all-penetrating Jesus worship a bit odd?

I mean, the guy was a rabid apologist for the slave-owning and landlord classes of the time, and defended the contents of the Old Testament voraciously. He also said that every town that refused to hear his preachings should have it's population slain.

The part about him also being the abrahamic god (you know, the genocide-inducing, sexist, slavery loving, gay hating, self-contradictory, despotic celestial tyrant we all know and love) notwithstanding.

[Quail]

I haven't actually read the bible in full so I'm not really in a position to comment. I don't personally understand how you could reconcile most religions with being a communist though, especially a libertarian communist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Marxism is materialist, atheistic and bases itself on a scientific understanding of the world - religion is idealist, usually theist, and substitutes emotional satisfaction for scientific rigor. No consistent Marxist can be religious.

[BIXX]

I haven't voted on the poll because I'm not sure. There do exist Christian (and probably other religious) communists (and bafflingly anarchists: "No Gods, No Masters! ... Well except our God"). I don't really know much about it, but I guess if someone had interpreted Jesus' message as "fight for a communist society" and their religion inspired them to become a communist I wouldn't be opposed to working with them, provided that they rejected the hierarchies in religious groups and didn't force their beliefs upon anyone else.

Not all communists are Marxists. You can be religious and a communist, but you can't be religious and Marxist.

[Quail]

Not all communists are Marxists. You can be religious and a communist, but you can't be religious and Marxist.
Presumably most communists have read Marx and are influenced by his work though.

[BIXX]

Presumably most communists have read Marx and are influenced by his work though.

Well, I would think at least a good amount of them have. Doesn't make them a Marxist though.

I would almost say there should be a distinction drawn between conditional materialism and unconditional materialism.

[Quail]

Anyway I actually agree, I was just playing devil's advocate.

[Brutus]

As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth. Every cleric is an enemy of the proletariat, and must be treated like any other class enemy.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes of course, however, major religious institutions are still dangerous.

[BIXX]

Yes of course, however, major religious institutions are still dangerous.

Explain why, please?

[kashkin]

I would say (a relatively unsure) yes. Certainly if someone who was religious but left-wing asked me if they could be a Marxist, I wouldn't say no; I would leave it up to them to find some way to reconcile materialism with their religious beliefs.


Explain why, please?

Most established religious institutions are ruling class institutions and play a major role in backing up the state and capitalist power, both ideologically and materially.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Explain why, please?

I don't see a contradiction between accepting 'Marxism' and a religion. Therefore, I believe a religious person can be a Marxist. This is, of course, because Marxism does not equal everything Marx believed but rather about a scientific understanding of capitalism, revolution, class struggle, and socialism.

[BIXX]

I don't see a contradiction between accepting 'Marxism' and a religion. Therefore, I believe a religious person can be a Marxist. This is, of course, because Marxism does not equal everything Marx believed but rather about a scientific understanding of capitalism, revolution, class struggle, and socialism.

Is it not more based around a materialist understanding, while religion is an idealist notion though?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Is it not more based around a materialist understanding, while religion is an idealist notion though?

Yes, but Marxism is addressing class struggle, capitalism, socialism, etc while religion is not based on a materialistic and scientific understand of those things, which is after all what Marxism is. So, they do not contradict. It's not a contradiction like being a Marxist and a liberal, or being a Moslem and a Christian. They do not need to 'interact' with one another for lack of a better word.

[G4b3n]

Yes, they can be a Marxists of different sorts. Not every Marxist has to believe exactly what Marx and Engels did and adhere to their methods of thought precisely, I would argue that they simply need to take up class politics in a Marxist sense.
They can not adhere to dialectical materialism without contradicting their religious beliefs. They could be dialecticians but not in a materialist sense. Materialism essentially tells us that "matter is the objective reality given to us through sensation", religion contradicts this core notion and therefore the degree of rationality that Marx provided to the study of dialectics.

[Comrade Jacob]

Good posts here guys, very interesting.

[DDR]

Liberation theologist are religious people (Catholic priests) and use marxism to analyse capitalism and its relations in the communities where they act. So yes, people can be religious and marxist.

[Remus Bleys]

I would say they can use marxism to the extent every communist can.
They can certainly be communist, but not orthodox marxists.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I would say they can use marxism to the extent every communist can.
They can certainly be communist, but not orthodox marxists.

Someone who believes in invisible men is not a materialist.

[Remus Bleys]

Someone who believes in invisible men is not a materialist.
materialism =/= communism

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Marxism ⊂ materialism.

[Remus Bleys]

Marxism ⊂ materialism. So, its impossible for people to use marxian economics and be religious at the same time?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Pretty much, if they are to do so consistently. And "Marxian" is academic rigmarole for people that copy from Marxism here and there but show no understanding of Marxist science.

[Fred]

I don't see a contradiction between accepting 'Marxism' and a religion. Therefore, I believe a religious person can be a Marxist. This is, of course, because Marxism does not equal everything Marx believed but rather about a scientific understanding of capitalism, revolution, class struggle, and socialism.

Marxism does not, I agree, encompass everything Marx believed -- it is methodology. But as comrades have noted, it is at its core, materialist. Religion at its core is idealistic. They cannot be reconciled.

[Dagoth Ur]

It's simple guys, history will show you. Capitalism in its revolutionary youth was also very anti-religion, and anti-clerical. This was precisely because the Church, at that time, was an organ of feudalism and espoused only justifications for the old order (the clerics at the time even often presided over feudal estates granted to the Church as Lords). Bourgeoisie atheism arose in this time as a reaction.

Flash-forward to today: Marxists, the new heralds of change, likewise take a strong anti-religious and anti-clerical tone because the modern Church is an organ of bourgeoisie rule (and in fact much of the various clergies are bourgeoisie themselves). So of course the line spouted by the Church is a fully bourgeoisie one and any dissent is ruthlessly crushed, a la Liberation Theology.

Here's the key, we can be bourgeoisie atheists and remove religion from time/space and claim its some unique evil that must be crushed to save Humanity. Or we could be fucking materialists and put the church where it belongs, propping up Proletarian rule and eventually being dissolved as its purpose is fulfilled (quite like the State which I would argue religion is a part-and-parcel of).

So of course yes. The only thing a communist can't be is fascist and that's only because fascists are a tool to kill communists.

tl;dr: SUPERSTRUCTURE REFLECTS BASE, ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US!

[BIXX]

Here's the key, we can be bourgeoisie atheists and remove religion from time/space and claim its some unique evil that must be crushed to save Humanity. Or we could be fucking materialists and put the church where it belongs, propping up Proletarian rule and eventually being dissolved as its purpose is fulfilled (quite like the State which I would argue religion is a part-and-parcel of).

So of course yes. The only thing a communist can't be is fascist and that's only because fascists are a tool to kill communists.

tl;dr: SUPERSTRUCTURE REFLECTS BASE, ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US!

The Church belongs in a pile of rubble. It is an inherently anti-working class idealist organization. The ideas that it spreads should burn with it.

Idealism can't be reconciled with Marxism, if you are to be a true materialist. Especially if you are trying to make the two "interact" as Aang said, which is what you'd be doing by using the Church to "prop up proletarian rule". It may be a possibility to use the church as a proletarian weapon (which I would advocate against for the same reason as I'd argue against the usage of the state, except that the church would seemingly be harder to abolish later as it could "legitimize" its rule by making the claim that it should rule because it is the messenger of God or that it needs to exist to protect the religion or any number of other reasons), but you cannot do so and be consistently Marxist.

tl;dr stop trying to say that you can mix Materialism and Idealism and be consistently Marxist.

[Remus Bleys]

The Church belongs in a pile of rubble. It is an inherently anti-working class idealist organization. The ideas that it spreads should burn with it.

Idealism can't be reconciled with Marxism, if you are to be a true materialist. Especially if you are trying to make the two "interact" as Aang said, which is what you'd be doing by using the Church to "prop up proletarian rule". It may be a possibility to use the church as a proletarian weapon (which I would advocate against for the same reason as I'd argue against the usage of the state, except that the church would seemingly be harder to abolish later as it could "legitimize" its rule by making the claim that it should rule because it is the messenger of God or that it needs to exist to protect the religion or any number of other reasons), but you cannot do so and be consistently Marxist.

tl;dr stop trying to say that you can mix Materialism and Idealism and be consistently Marxist.
Is the point of marxism to make everyone a marxist, or is the point to have the workers control the means of production?

[BIXX]

Is the point of marxism to make everyone a marxist, or is the point to have the workers control the means of production?

You missed the point of my post. I was just saying that you can't be religious and Marxist at the same time. It's not a problem, it's just reality.

[Astarte]

You missed the point of my post. I was just saying that you can't be religious and Marxist at the same time. It's not a problem, it's just reality.

Coming from someone who calls themselves an "anarcho-communist" and does not even seem to identify as a Marxist, I can't imagine why anyone would put stock in the notion you present on this issue. The reality actually is that you cannot be an orthodox Marxist and have spiritual views at the same time - however that does not mean you cannot be a neo-Marxist, or some other variety of unorthodox Marxist. Life, philosophy and ideology are full of contradictions, and opposing views. To deny that a reconciliation of Marxism with spiritual beliefs is not only possible, but occurs everyday in the personal outlooks of many individuals is not just unrealistic and superfluously rigid, but actually completely contrary to the dialectical process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis; the very mode of thought which spawned Marxism in the first place...

[Comrade Chernov]

There are religious Marxists out there, it's entirely possible, I don't see how this is a big deal. Unless we're measuring E-Peen or something, a Comrade is a Comrade is a Comrade, and to judge a Comrade on the virtue of what he views life on the Earth to be is a Reactionary move.

Not to mention, though secularism is popular in the west, religion still plays major cultural roles in non-western countries. Atheism, no matter how right it is (which I believe it to be), can be used as a very racist, western, almost Imperialist even, ideology. Especially when used in the context of "We must free our Comrades from their barbaric, primitive religion!".

[Zealot]

I would say yes but I probably would have said no a couple of years ago. I've come to realise that interpretation of religious scripture and dogma is very diverse and that religious radicals will often structure their religious beliefs around their radical beliefs, not vice versa. For instance, just because the Bible condemns homosexuality does not infer that the religious radical is homophobic since they usually interpret such things totally different or simply reject it altogether. I think some on the left fail to appreciate how secularisation and the ensuing personalisation/privatisation of the religious sphere has radically altered personal belief systems. Organised religion is nowhere near as dominant or influential as it was previously and even some who are involved in a formal church don't fall for dogmatic religious interpretations. I know deeply religious christians who have no problem toking weed and having pre-marital sex. So while it was probably true in the time of Marx and Lenin, the idea that all believers are reactionary by default just doesn't stand in 2013.

[Zealot]

Also, this might be of interest to some and it also ties in to what I said above:



Did Lenin Ever Attend Church?

Yes, and reasonably regularly while he and Nadya were living in London in 1902-3:

He 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 … Once we wandered into a socialist church. There are such churches in England. The socialist in charge was droning through the Bible, and then delivered a sermon to the effect that the exodus of the Jews from Egypt symbolized the exodus of the workers from the kingdom of capitalism to the kingdom of socialism. Everyone stood up and sang from a socialist hymn-book: ‘Lead us, O Lord, from the Kingdom of Capitalism to the Kingdom of Socialism’. We went to that church again afterwards – it was the Seven Sisters Church.
Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin, pp. 72-3.
No wonder the latter half of the Second Congress of the party was held in a church in London.


http://stalinsmoustache.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/did-lenin-ever-attend-church/

[BIXX]

Coming from someone who calls themselves an "anarcho-communist" and does not even seem to identify as a Marxist, I can't imagine why anyone would put stock in the notion you present on this issue.

I wasn't aware that outside opinions were unwelcome.


The reality actually is that you cannot be an orthodox Marxist and have spiritual views at the same time - however that does not mean you cannot be a neo-Marxist, or some other variety of unorthodox Marxist.

I would expect all versions of Marxism take materialism pretty seriously.


Life, philosophy and ideology are full of contradictions, and opposing views. To deny that a reconciliation of Marxism with spiritual beliefs is not only possible, but occurs everyday in the personal outlooks of many individuals is not just unrealistic and superfluously rigid, but actually completely contrary to the dialectical process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis; the very mode of thought which spawned Marxism in the first place...

1. I'm just saying that you may be able to utilize Marxism if you are religious, but you are going against materialism so you cannot be consistently Marxist.

2. Does a rejection of materialism (through having idealistic beliefs) allow for dialectical materialism to work?

I would think an inconsistent Marxist would be the synthesis if it did (which is what I have been saying). I was rigid when I said you can't be a Marxist, really what I mean is you vacant be a consistent one.

[Astarte]

I wasn't aware that outside opinions were unwelcome.



I would expect all versions of Marxism take materialism pretty seriously.

I would expect most people in the 21st century to take the material world pretty seriously too. Discounting materialism as a "theory of everything" does not mean discounting materialism as a theory of historiographical or political praxis - why is this so hard to understand?




1. I'm just saying that you may be able to utilize Marxism if you are religious, but you are going against materialism so you cannot be consistently Marxist.
Personally, I would consider people who believe that the USSR was "state-capitalist" as "going against Marxism" probably just as much as you consider the idea of discounting materialism as a theory of everything to go against Marxism. Historical materialism is a tool for the investigation of human society in the material world that does not just "stop working" because someone has another idea about what may be the under lying origin or structural framework of reality. If the material world were an automobile, and human civilizations were the engine, and historical materialism were a wrench for working on that engine, and dialectical materialism were the blue prints for that automobile, having the schematics of the factory the automobile was built in would not effect your ability to work on the engine with said wrench, or even understand the dynamics of the automobile... we just don't believe the automobile can tell you everything about the factory it was built in, per se...


2. Does a rejection of materialism (through having idealistic beliefs) allow for dialectical materialism to work?
It depends. If your idealistic belief is that praying over water will make it boil rather than heating it then that belief probably will cause DM (and a lot of other things) not to work. If you believe adding heat to the water to make it boil will cause it to boil while at the same time recognizing no matter how much you pray over the water it will not boil unless you add heat, then you probably won't have to worry about a breakdown of dialectical materialism...


I would think an inconsistent Marxist would be the synthesis if it did (which is what I have been saying). I was rigid when I said you can't be a Marxist, really what I mean is you vacant be a consistent one.
I see a lot of inconsistencies around here in terms of the application of Marxian theory even in regards to things like what exactly constitutes a socialist mode of production, which should be cut and dry since we are dealing with a 100% material process - I don't think holding some spiritual beliefs will hinder anyone's class analysis...

[Zostrianos]

I see a lot of inconsistencies around here in terms of the application of Marxian theory even in regards to things like what exactly constitutes a socialist mode of production, which should be cut and dry since we are dealing with a 100% material process - I don't think holding some spiritual beliefs will hinder anyone's class analysis...

Exactly. Apples and oranges.

[BIXX]

I would expect most people in the 21st century to take the material world pretty seriously too. Discounting materialism as a "theory of everything" does not mean discounting materialism as a theory of historiographical or political praxis - why is this so hard to understand?

It means disregarding it when you find it convenient but acknowledging it when you want it.

Also, by no means is materialism a "theory of everything". It's a way of describing the world, and when we start making up beliefs, that is not describing our world, but rather a different world.


Personally, I would consider people who believe that the USSR was "state-capitalist" as "going against Marxism" probably just as much as you consider the idea of discounting materialism as a theory of everything to go against Marxism. Historical materialism is a tool for the investigation of human society in the material world that does not just "stop working" because someone has another idea about what may be the under lying origin or structural framework of reality.

I know it doesn't simply stop working. The problem is that acceptance of idealism in one area is inconsistent and means that someone can basically come up with whatever because they decided that materialism need not apply here.


If the material world were an automobile, and human civilizations were the engine, and historical materialism were a wrench for working on that engine, and dialectical materialism were the blue prints for that automobile, having the schematics of the factory the automobile was built in would not effect your ability to work on the engine with said wrench, or even understand the dynamics of the automobile... we just don't believe the automobile can tell you everything about the factory it was built in, per se...

This is reasonable, but I see the world as far more entwined them that, where rather that idealism being the blueprints for the factory, it is more similar to say, the user manual for the car.


It depends. If your idealistic belief is that praying over water will make it boil rather than heating it then that belief probably will cause DM (and a lot of other things) not to work. If you believe adding heat to the water to make it boil will cause it to boil while at the same time recognizing no matter how much you pray over the water it will not boil unless you add heat, then you probably won't have to worry about a breakdown of dialectical materialism...

Well, if you see the world as so segmented, with idealism (religion) being so removed from materialism (real world) then what is the pint if introducing idealism? By that I mean, why would you follow a religion unless you believe it has some effect on the real world (which was one of the major problems many materialists have had with religion, that it effected people's understanding of the world).


I see a lot of inconsistencies around here in terms of the application of Marxian theory even in regards to things like what exactly constitutes a socialist mode of production, which should be cut and dry since we are dealing with a 100% material process

I can't say I have enough invested in learning about Marxism to say what does or does not constitute a Marxist vision of a socialist mode of production, but to me it would seem that differing opinions could make sense because of the different material conditions people live under, but at the same time it does seem odd that there is disagreement as I would think it is a pretty cut and dry issue like you said.


I don't think holding some spiritual beliefs will hinder anyone's class analysis...

I disagree, but I can't claim to know 100%

[Red Economist]

voted yes. but the difference between yes and no, is what you define Marxism as; if Marxism is simply a political theory, you can be a Marxist and religious; if Marxism is a philosophical world view, it will be inherently atheist.

[BIXX]

voted yes. but the difference between yes and no, is what you define Marxism as; if Marxism is simply a political theory, you can be a Marxist and religious; if Marxism is a philosophical world view, it will be inherently atheist.

A good point that I had not considered before.

I was operating under the philosophical basis while it appears Astarte was operating under the purely political basis.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To condense the argument I made in the Pegan Marxism thread:

Is there room for religious belifs in Marxism? No.

Can religious people be class revolutionaries? Yes.

Can a person be marxist and religious? Well yes, but not without contradictions on some level; just as hard scientists can be materialists, but also be religious. So I voted yes with an asterix.

[Astarte]

Can a person be marxist and religious? Well yes, but not without contradictions on some level; just as hard scientists can be materialists, but also be religious. So I voted yes with an asterix.

I agree with this. I've said a couple times people like myself can't be orthodox Marxists, but rather are some kind of heterodox Marxist, or neo-Marxist; I am fine with that label - this is my wording for yes* - I would have liked to have seen in this poll the option "Yes, but not an orthodox Marxist".

[Skyhilist]

I voted for the 2nd option. Here's why: Marxism is supposed to fall in line with the scientific method for answering questions reasonable to be asked in a scientific manner. So obviously, answering "how was the universe created?" with "god did it" would sort of disqualify you. However, if you have something like say, an involvement with Taoist spirituality not involving deities, the questions they might ask might not be ones that would really be answered by science in the first place. For example, "How can I nourish the spiritual bond that I have with nature?" might not really be a question asked of science, so it wouldn't necessarily be betraying the scientific method (and therefore Marxism) to seek the answer to such abstract questions in a spiritual philosophy.

[Fakeblock]

However, if you have something like say, an involvement with Taoist spirituality not involving deities, the questions they might ask might not be ones that would really be answered by science in the first place. For example, "How can I nourish the spiritual bond that I have with nature?" might not really be a question asked of science, so it wouldn't necessarily be betraying the scientific method (and therefore Marxism) to seek the answer to such abstract questions in a spiritual philosophy.

But that question assumes that you have a spritual, immaterial bond with nature. There is a lot of mysticism and idealism in such an assumption and it is completely unscientific. It is kind of like saying that "how did God create the universe in seven days?" isn't an unscientific question, since science doesn't ask it.

[Skyhilist]

But that question assumes that you have a spritual, immaterial bond with nature. There is a lot of mysticism and idealism in such an assumption and it is completely unscientific. It is kind of like saying that "how did God create the universe in seven days?" isn't an unscientific question, since science doesn't ask it.

I've always assessed a spiritual bond as one that simply goes beyond the usual connections that most people have. Like for example, suppose you really like snakes and have such a deep connection that you can accurately read their behavior, whereas the vast majority of people have no idea what's going on. When you have a really deep connection like that, I see that as sort of spiritual; whether or not it operates within the confines of the material world that we know is a whole different matter.

Just because science doesn't ask a question doesn't mean it's not a question worth asking. Suppose someone who asked the aforementioned question does a lot of great things because they have a deep bond with nature, which was aided by some type of philosophy like Taoism. Would that bond have been strengthened by other practices like the practices within science? Maybe. But maybe not, so that doesn't make that bond illegitimate. You wouldn't want to deny bonds like those from occurring, so why deny people an identity as "a Marxist" or whatever because they have that type of bond, developed in such a manner?

Moreover, what if the practices of a "spiritual" philosophy is compatible with science? For example, suppose I'm a Buddhist and meditate to reduce stress. Suppose science discovers Buddhist-style meditation does a damned good job of relieving stress. As a Buddhist, I'd be thinking "well no shit!" after hearing something like that; just because that person was meditating before the stress relief induced by their meditation was proven by science, doesn't mean that they were wrong to meditate, or anti-science. In fact, firsthand experience is one of the most exploitative and scientific things you can do. We shouldn't demonize these types of people as "not true Marxists", so long as their views don't conflict with those of science. So long as something isn't proven or disproved concretely, it's OK to have your own ideas on it.

And also, you have to remember that everything has its limits. There are certain things that science wont ever have the answer for, because science measures objective things. Therefore, when you are talking about something abstract and subjective, having your own ideas without consulting the non-existent ideas portrayed by science on that area (as we see in many Eastern philosophies) is not rejecting the scientific method, and therefore not anti-Marxist.

Not that it matters. Whether you slap the label of "Marxist" on someone is irrelevant. It doesn't automatically make them a better or worse person because you decided to categorize them. So it's kind of foolish to bicker about excluding people from your category, when it was an arbitrary, subjective, and made up category to begin with, which I somewhat ironically have only realized now after engaging you.

[Fakeblock]

I've always assessed a spiritual bond as one that simply goes beyond the usual connections that most people have. Like for example, suppose you really like snakes and have such a deep connection that you can accurately read their behavior, whereas the vast majority of people have no idea what's going on. When you have a really deep connection like that, I see that as sort of spiritual; whether or not it operates within the confines of the material world that we know is a whole different matter.

What, like reading minds? It's possible (and probably easier) to scientifically analyse snake behaviour, there's no need to resort to mysticism.


Just because science doesn't ask a question doesn't mean it's not a question worth asking. Suppose someone who asked the aforementioned question does a lot of great things because they have a deep bond with nature, which was aided by some type of philosophy like Taoism. Would that bond have been strengthened by other practices like the practices within science? Maybe. But maybe not, so that doesn't make that bond illegitimate. You wouldn't want to deny bonds like those from occurring, so why deny people an identity as "a Marxist" or whatever because they have that type of bond, developed in such a manner?

You're still working from the assumption that one can have this sort of 'bond with nature', but what does the phrase even mean? It seems pretty vague to me.


Moreover, what if the practices of a "spiritual" philosophy is compatible with science? For example, suppose I'm a Buddhist and meditate to reduce stress. Suppose science discovers Buddhist-style meditation does a damned good job of relieving stress. As a Buddhist, I'd be thinking "well no shit!" after hearing something like that; just because that person was meditating before the stress relief induced by their meditation was proven by science, doesn't mean that they were wrong to meditate, or anti-science. In fact, firsthand experience is one of the most exploitative and scientific things you can do. We shouldn't demonize these types of people as "not true Marxists", so long as their views don't conflict with those of science.

I'm no expert on meditation or stress, but I'd suppose that taking your mind of the thing that stresses you would be helpful. Believing that you can rid yourself of all suffering through meditation is undeniably anti-Marxist though.

And no one is trying to demonise religious people. Saying that someone, who isn't a consistent Marxist isn't a consistent Marxist isn't demonising, it's just stating facts. Sorry to say it, but religious people tend to take it way too personally when someone criticises their faith.


So long as something isn't proven or disproved concretely, it's OK to have your own ideas on it.

Sure, you can believe whatever you want. But believing, for example, that the entire material world is a product of your own faults, is anti-marxist even though it hasn't been completely disproved.


And also, you have to remember that everything has its limits. There are certain things that science wont ever have the answer for, because science measures objective things. Therefore, when you are talking about something abstract and subjective, having your own ideas without consulting the non-existent ideas portrayed by science on that area (as we see in many Eastern philosophies) is not rejecting the scientific method, and therefore not anti-Marxist.

What do you mean by "the subjective"? The natural sciences explain the natural world, the social sciences explain human relations. For these spiritual philosophies to be useful, one must assume that there exists something supernatural, something that is independent of the material world.


Not that it matters. Whether you slap the label of "Marxist" on someone is irrelevant. It doesn't automatically make them a better or worse person because you decided to categorize them.

No, it most likely doesn't. But the discussion is about whether or not religion is compatible with Marxism, so the Marxist label is completely relevant in this case.


So it's kind of foolish to bicker about excluding people from your category, when it was an arbitrary, subjective, and made up category to begin with, which I somewhat ironically have only realized now after engaging you.

Is it? Marxism is made up and subjective to the same extent that all other scientific paradigms are. It's not about excluding people, this discussion actually serves the useful purpose of clarification. If you don't even think Marxism is a real thing you probably won't find this thread useful, though.

[Remus Bleys]

Karl Marx wasn't a Marxist...

[Klaatu]

I agree completely with you that they'd be people to work with, but am I the only one who finds this weird all-penetrating Jesus worship a bit odd?

I mean, the guy was a rabid apologist for the slave-owning and landlord classes of the time, and defended the contents of the Old Testament voraciously. He also said that every town that refused to hear his preachings should have it's population slain.

The part about him also being the abrahamic god (you know, the genocide-inducing, sexist, slavery loving, gay hating, self-contradictory, despotic celestial tyrant we all know and love) notwithstanding.

Please quote chapter and verse, especially the part about Jesus "having town populations slain."

[Dagoth Ur]

If you're not putting historical figures into the context of their times you are not using historical materialism at all. Slavery didn't become a reactionary mode of production until nearly a half-millennium after Jesus died (also about the same time that the Romans deified him for their new state religion).

[argeiphontes]

I'm not sure in what sense religion is an idealism.
Neoplatonism is an idealism, but what about Christians who believe that their god created the material universe.

I would guess that a religion is more like an irrational system of knowledge, I.e. like a science except that knowledge comes from "gnosis" instead of empirical "observation". So that only particular contents of religion could be in conflict with Marxism.

[Brutus]

To be a Marxist, one must be a materialist, no? If you were to apply a proper materialist analysis to religion, God, all that supposition, etc. you will arrive at the conclusion that there is no God and religion is a form of class rule.

[Dagoth Ur]

Being a materialist does not lead to "there is no god". Such is a metaphysical position.

[BIXX]

Being a materialist does not lead to "there is no god". Such is a metaphysical position.

No, but a god is just an idea we came up with. Without material proof, we cannot believe in a god.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, but a god is just an idea we came up with. Without material proof, we cannot believe in a god.
It is precisely the lack of material evidence that enables belief as something distinct from knowledge. One can certainly believe in a god without it, and in fact, everyone who believes must do so without any material proof (since the concept precludes verification; it is metaphysical).

[Tolstoy]

The notion that religious beliefs are irrevocably opposed to the proleteriat has held Socialism back in numerous ways. The association with Bolsheviks and burning churches frightened off many americans from the Socialist Movement, and theres a similar cultural issue with Middle Eastern Marxists due to the conservative morality of the reigion.
Ultimately, I am a Marxist because the behavior of Christ himself was Socialistic in behavior.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The notion that religious beliefs are irrevocably opposed to the proleteriat has held Socialism back in numerous ways.

An opposition to tailism and compromise does not "hold back" communism - sure, groups that compromise and tail popular developments have more members in conditions of low class struggle, but all those extra members can't save an organisation that has abandoned a proletarian standpoint.


The association with Bolsheviks and burning churches frightened off many americans from the Socialist Movement, and theres a similar cultural issue with Middle Eastern Marxists due to the conservative morality of the reigion.

It was the Russian proletarians who burned churches - churches who were hoarding gold and jewels in the midst of the famine. What would you have had them do, starve patiently while the priests sat on valuables? As for the "Middle East" - nice, so you think we should tail "conservative morality of the region"? Nothing more Marxist than a good lynching of a gay person or an independent woman, no?


Ultimately, I am a Marxist because the behavior of Christ himself was Socialistic in behavior.

Supporting slavery and preaching against popular resistance isn't socialist by a long shot.

[Tolstoy]

Theres an obvious need for cultural relativism regarding Christ. The fact is hte man was deeply compassionate for the poor. Additionally, crucifixion was a tool used by the Romans exclusively for those who attempted insurrection, so its actually quite likely that the conception of Christ as politically neutral is quite wrong.
I dont oppose so much what the Bolsheviks did and I recognize its importance (religious institutions are typically corrupt). Im simply arguing that the association with being opposed to religion is one that damages Socialisms credibility for many americans.
Im obviously not arguing that Socialists in the Middle East should advocate lynching gays. Truthfully, the notion that all Muslims are staunchly conservative monsters who throw acid in womens faces and hang gays is a steretype and pretty islamophobic

[Remus Bleys]

Supporting slavery and preaching against popular resistance isn't socialist by a long shot.Got your sauce on that?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Theres an obvious need for cultural relativism regarding Christ. The fact is hte man was deeply compassionate for the poor. Additionally, crucifixion was a tool used by the Romans exclusively for those who attempted insurrection, so its actually quite likely that the conception of Christ as politically neutral is quite wrong.

"Compassion for the poor" - what sort of class are "the poor"? not any class recognised by Marxism - is not communism but paternalism.


I dont oppose so much what the Bolsheviks did and I recognize its importance (religious institutions are typically corrupt). Im simply arguing that the association with being opposed to religion is one that damages Socialisms credibility for many americans.

And the "credibility" of socialism is not important - what is important is the radicalisation of masses and a strong, consistent revolutionary programme. Communism will never be palatable to the polite society.


Im obviously not arguing that Socialists in the Middle East should advocate lynching gays. Truthfully, the notion that all Muslims are staunchly conservative monsters who throw acid in womens faces and hang gays is a steretype and pretty islamophobic

Who said anything about "all Muslims"? You were talking about "religious conservatism" and how socialists should tail that. There is nothing particularly special about Islam - Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc. are the same. And a consistent communist will never tail "religious conservatism" or compromise the socialist programme to attract conservatives. Communism stands for the liberation of women, of gay people, of trans* people and the irreligious. If the Muslim conservatives, or Christian or Raelian conservatives or whatnot, are offended by that, so be it. That must mean we are doing something right.


Got your sauce on that?

"Render unto Caesar", Pauline epistles and all that.

[Tolstoy]

Plus consider how religious people have contributed to Marxism. The Catholic Workers Movement, Ernesto Cardenal and Liberation Theology have all amde major contributions to Socialism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

None of those movements was Marxist, and none was able to lead the proletariat in seizing state power.

[Ocean Seal]

Its a method of analysis, it is quite contradictory to believe in deities and Marxism, but ultimately we are a mess of contradictions in our own right. Each and every one of us.

[Remus Bleys]

"Render unto Caesar", Pauline epistles and all that. Well, we are talking about Jesus dipshit, Paul doesn't count.
If we were talking about the Bible in general, that'd be different. But we are talking about Jesus.
So, if the "Render unto Caesar" is the best you got, you have nothing.
With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/ The Bible is full of subtly. To take it literally is asinine. Thus to judge it literally is not actually judging the work as it was originally written.

[Remus Bleys]

None of those movements was Marxist, and none was able to lead the proletariat in seizing state power.
Tell me more about when Trotksyism led to the proletariat seizing state power.

I mean, if you are gonna criticize religious people for not bringing anything substantial, what substantial thing has trotskyism done other than pointless sectarian squabbles?

[Astarte]

An opposition to tailism and compromise does not "hold back" communism - sure, groups that compromise and tail popular developments have more members in conditions of low class struggle, but all those extra members can't save an organisation that has abandoned a proletarian standpoint.

Again. Complete drivel. Before the advent of Marxism, and (even frequently after) viritually all movements of oppressed classes were motivated by some form of spiritualism or another. The Yellow Turbans, The White Lotus Society, the Red Turbans, Mazdakism, the Cathars, The Brethren of the Free-Spirit, Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being, The Tai-ping Rebellion, The Boxer Rebellion, etc, etc, etc - to accuse any of these of tailism is laughable in the extreme.


"Compassion for the poor" - what sort of class are "the poor"? not any class recognised by Marxism - is not communism but paternalism.

Your search for Marxian class analysis in the Bible is just plain ahistorical and stupid. To be in contempt of the most progressive parts of a text that billions of people world wide take as "the honest to God gospel" is not just ideologically chauvanistric, but also tactically reactionary. Pointing out verses and parables in the Bible that could easily be interpreted as progressively radical is not tailism, but co-optation - an important mechanism to be utilized in the never-ending 'war of position'.

[Dagoth Ur]

Jeez this thread is depressing. To the so-called Marxists antitheists:
1. Define Faith.
2. Historical context, use it.
3. Materialism and Marxism, use them.
4. Having any position on God, positive, negative or neutral, is to have a metaphysical position.
5. Metaphysics =/= Idealism

[MarxSchmarx]

I think this has to be a yes.

Marxism is a method. It is not a dogma.

I disagree with the idea that Marxism (or even religion for that matter) has to be an all-encompassing metaphysical system. Rather, Marxism is first and foremost an approach to human social science that is for the most part naturalistic and is consistent with the natural sciences as regards human conduct. It is an analytical tool to understand how the dynamics of the class struggle drive social processes, and how these processes, in turn, feed back to structure the class struggle, as others have noted.

It doesn't answer the question of how do we make peace with our own mortality or really even answer the question of how we should live any more than botany or atmospheric sciences do.

The Dalai Lama says they consider themselves a Marxist:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/06/dalai-lama-china-marx-communism/1

I reckon they've probably thought it through (especially when they add they aren't leninists). Now, what do you suppose leads them to this conclusion?

When you start pondering it that way, I think you realize that Marxism in fact is quite compatible with a range of philosophical commitments the way, say, physics or any other science is. For instance, one could if one desired construct a methodologically solipsistic approach to marxism (it woud be a waste of time, but it could be done) that is perfectly consistent with the cannon.

The religion side of the equation is also a case in point. I think something like Spinoza's Pantheism, for instance, might in fact be quite consistent with Marxism. Perhaps the more literalist readings of the monotheistic faiths and an honest to-god belief in Thor and Osiris and Quetzolcoatl and all that is probably incompatible with Marxism. But most other religious traditions I suspect are for the most part not.

[Zostrianos]

To be a Marxist, one must be a materialist, no? If you were to apply a proper materialist analysis to religion, God, all that supposition, etc. you will arrive at the conclusion that there is no God and religion is a form of class rule.

Marx's blanket assessment of religion as a form of class rule is incorrect and obsolete. There were and are religious institutions who exerted power and oppression and were used for such purposes, but this is not religion in general. This idea leaves out things like spirituality, knowledge of self, psychological benefits of religion, religious groups and institutions that did not exert class rule or oppress anyone, and the scientifically proven benefits of meditation, which I can attest to myself, and so it is baseless.

When Buddha spent years in meditation to finally come up with his philosophy, do you anti-theists really think his intention was to create a system of class oppression? You have any idea how laughable and ridiculous that is? Try passing this idea of "all religion is class oppression" off in a university, in a religion course; your professor will probably chuck your thesis in the garbage and fail you.

Now on the other hand if you say "many religious institutions were used as a form of class rule and oppression", that would be more accurate.

[Klaatu]

Is it possible that some Marxists may oppose religion on the grounds that religion opposes abortion, contraception, sex-outside-of-marriage, etc?

Well not all religions oppose these things. At least not in a fervent way. You can be religious and still accept the idea that a woman has a right to plan her family the way she sees fit, sans interference from the state and crazy religious fanatics.

[Decolonize The Left]

Jeez this thread is depressing. To the so-called Marxists antitheists:
1. Define Faith.
Belief in spite of reason.

2. Historical context, use it.
3. Materialism and Marxism, use them.
Alright. I'm done now, should I put them back in the drawer with the can opener?

4. Having any position on God, positive, negative or neutral, is to have a metaphysical position.
5. Metaphysics =/= Idealism
Correct. But metaphysics = immaterial. Material = physics. So, yes, religion is belief in the immaterial which is non-materialist. This isn't weird philosophy jargon it's simple logic.

Stop trying to justify religion. Religion has had years to stick its foot down the throat of billions of people and now that people are pissed off about being treated like slaves religious people are all "oh no! we aren't doing anything, we're just believing! let us believe!" Well, you can believe all you want. But don't tell me you're a materialist and then pray to a man in the sky.

[Klaatu]

Well, you can believe all you want. But don't tell me you're a materialist and then pray to a man in the sky.

It is possible to be a Materialist yet it is impossible not to acknowledge that there exists nature, that latent property of all living things. Some call this a "life force" and some call it "god." In my opinion, there exists something pertaining to this phenomenon which is yet undiscovered.
As an analogy, before the 19th century, no one had any idea of what electricity and magnetism were. And then it was discovered and explained. Here in the 21st, we may be on the verge of discovering the secret of life itself. (what makes us "tick?")

I view this in a scientific sense, not in a religious sense. Would this be a Materialistic view?

[Decolonize The Left]

It is possible to be a Materialist yet it is impossible not to acknowledge that there exists nature, that latent property of all living things. Some call this a "life force" and some call it "god." In my opinion, there exists something pertaining to this phenomenon which is yet undiscovered.
As an analogy, before the 19th century, no one had any idea of what electricity and magnetism were. And then it was discovered and explained. Here in the 21st, we may be on the verge of discovering the secret of life itself. (what makes us "tick?")

I view this in a scientific sense, not in a religious sense. Would this be a Materialistic view?

Are you talking about something like the spacetime continuum? Or the abstract physical theory of everything being a single fabric of randomized sub-atomic quarks or something? If so, then sure, it's materialistic.

What isn't materialistic is abstract this out into a "nature." Or a "god." It ceases to be materialistic when you posit that this thing has a will (read: anthropomorphism).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It is possible to be a Materialist yet it is impossible not to acknowledge that there exists nature, that latent property of all living things. Some call this a "life force" and some call it "god." In my opinion, there exists something pertaining to this phenomenon which is yet undiscovered.
As an analogy, before the 19th century, no one had any idea of what electricity and magnetism were. And then it was discovered and explained. Here in the 21st, we may be on the verge of discovering the secret of life itself. (what makes us "tick?")

I view this in a scientific sense, not in a religious sense. Would this be a Materialistic view?

"What makes us tick" is a complex series of chemical reactions, most of which are understood. There is no "life force" - that notion belongs to the idealistic theory of vitalism, and modern biology decisively rejects any sort of vital force or elan. So it is not only possible to deny it - that is the only scientific option.


Again. Complete drivel. Before the advent of Marxism, and (even frequently after) viritually all movements of oppressed classes were motivated by some form of spiritualism or another. The Yellow Turbans, The White Lotus Society, the Red Turbans, Mazdakism, the Cathars, The Brethren of the Free-Spirit, Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being, The Tai-ping Rebellion, The Boxer Rebellion, etc, etc, etc - to accuse any of these of tailism is laughable in the extreme.

Ah, how people idealise the Cathars. Were the count of Toulouse and the king of Aragon part of the oppressed classes? That aside, I never said that these movements were tailist - though some, such as the Cult of the Supreme Being, were - but that an abandonment of principled Marxist materialism in order to tail the backward consciousness of the masses is tailist.


Your search for Marxian class analysis in the Bible is just plain ahistorical and stupid. To be in contempt of the most progressive parts of a text that billions of people world wide take as "the honest to God gospel" is not just ideologically chauvanistric, but also tactically reactionary. Pointing out verses and parables in the Bible that could easily be interpreted as progressively radical is not tailism, but co-optation - an important mechanism to be utilized in the never-ending 'war of position'.

"Ideologically chauvinist"? Are you serious? Engage in your little "wars of position" as much as you want, but don't expect Marxists - consistent Marxists at least, there is always an inexhaustible supply of eclectics - to abandon their programme because the masses of workers are infected with religious ideology.


Tell me more about when Trotksyism led to the proletariat seizing state power.

I mean, if you are gonna criticize religious people for not bringing anything substantial, what substantial thing has trotskyism done other than pointless sectarian squabbles?

Trotskyism is a creative development of Leninism, which led the Russian proletariat in seizing state power in Russia and inspired similar movements in Hungary, Germany etc. Indian Bolsheviks-Leninists contributed significantly to the end of British rule - far more than the hypocrite Gandhi. And so on.

And we also know what happens when the "progressive" religious "radicals" seize state power - just look at Iran.


Well, we are talking about Jesus dipshit, Paul doesn't count.

I mean - sure, the average person in the time when he allegedly lived would have approved of slavery, and he is never recorded as speaking out against slavery, and sure, one of his chief disciples praises slavery, but that's all inconclusive, no?


If we were talking about the Bible in general, that'd be different. But we are talking about Jesus.
So, if the "Render unto Caesar" is the best you got, you have nothing.

Ah, this is absolutely hilarious. Someone is alleged to said something with a fairly straightforward interpretation, which incidentally also coheres with every report of their actions, but, no, what they really meant is something that is more palatable to you.

Now if anyone tried to apply this sort of reasoning to other historical figures, people would laugh. But since the figure has something to do with religion, and since religious people insist on being given extra consideration and leeway...

[Klaatu]

Are you talking about something like the spacetime continuum? Or the abstract physical theory of everything being a single fabric of randomized sub-atomic quarks or something? If so, then sure, it's materialistic.

What isn't materialistic is abstract this out into a "nature." Or a "god." It ceases to be materialistic when you posit that this thing has a will (read: anthropomorphism).

I am saying that it is as yet unexplained.


"What makes us tick" is a complex series of chemical reactions, most of which are understood. There is no "life force" - that notion belongs to the idealistic theory of vitalism, and modern biology decisively rejects any sort of vital force or elan. So it is not only possible to deny it - that is the only scientific option.

Then it should be possible to synthesize life in the laboratory. And I do not mean via cloning or stem cells, etc. That would be merely copying something that is already there. I mean synthesize from scratch... like a recipe... one cup of this inanimate compound, a few grams of
that inanimate compound, and presto! Life!

You are saying that this can be done?

[Decolonize The Left]

I am saying that it is as yet unexplained.

Unfortunately, my friend, you are not. You are primarily positing that it exists - I (and others) challenge you on this claim. And you are secondarily positing that it is not yet explained. For how could it be unexplained if it wasn't there at all?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Then it should be possible to synthesize life in the laboratory. And I do not mean via cloning or stem cells, etc. That would be merely copying something that is already there. I mean synthesize from scratch... like a recipe... one cup of this inanimate compound, a few grams of
that inanimate compound, and presto! Life!

You are saying that this can be done?

In principle it could, but at this point we can't manipulate matter on those scales with sufficient precision - but this is obviously an engineering problem. Then there are organisms like Mycoplasma Laboratorium, a partially synthetic bacterium - that one was rather famous, I think, because the project head was basically showing off in every interview.

[Klaatu]

Unfortunately, my friend, you are not. You are primarily positing that it exists - I (and others) challenge you on this claim.

Nothing in this universe happens without cause. I ask about causes. That is my premise.



And you are secondarily positing that it is not yet explained. For how could it be unexplained if it wasn't there at all?

That is such an unscientific statement. If you are so certain there exists no animating impetus behind a living consciousness,
then be prepared to prove this. Otherwise, it is merely opinion.

[Tolstoy]

None of those movements was Marxist, and none was able to lead the proletariat in seizing state power.

Liberation Theology suggested that Catholics should work with Marxists and thus was a big help in the more Catholic reigions of Central America. Ernesto Cardenal is a Marxist who aided the Sandinistas in siezing power

[Remus Bleys]

Trotskyism is a creative development of Leninism, which led the Russian proletariat in seizing state power in Russia and inspired similar movements in Hungary, Germany etc. Indian Bolsheviks-Leninists contributed significantly to the end of British rule - far more than the hypocrite Gandhi. And so on. the russian revolution validates leninism, not trotskys additions. Hungary germany etc validates marxist-leninism, which was inn opposition to trotskyism. The indian proletariat never got state power, and so what if they helped with national liberation? Georgee washington was engaged in national liberation. Is classical liberalism also a marxist theory now?


And we also know what happens when the "progressive" religious "radicals" seize state power - just look at Iran. we all now what happens when "progressive"leninists take state power - just look at Russia.




I mean - sure, the average person in the time when he allegedly lived would have approved of slavery, and he is never recorded as speaking out against slavery, and sure, onePaul was speaking of the relation fo God (master) to that off everyone else (slaves). The idea being not that slaves should be passive, but that humans should live by God's law.


h, t
his is absolutely hilarious. Someone is alleged to said something with a fairly straightforward interpretation, which incidentally also coheres with every report of their actions, but, no, what they really meant is something that is more palatable to you.

Now if anyone tried to apply this sort of reasoning to other historical figures, people would laugh. But since the figure has something to do with religion, and since religious people insist on being given extra consideration and leeway...
Your argument ignores that the Bible is a thological construct and not a historical one. There is a reason its contraductory, its a book of meesages, not recorded facts. So, the idea that everything in it is clear and straightforward is laughable and shows your utter ignorance in religion. No, it is not giving it leeway, it is interpreting the bible as it originally meant to, as a set of messages and ideas, not as facts. It is not a collection of fatcs, it wasn't written as one, and it doesn't try to be one. So intepreting it as such is asinine. what you are doing is literally interpreting a metaphor, a riddle a parable.

[Dagoth Ur]

Belief in spite of reason.
In spite of reason is incorrect, in spite of information is correct. Reason can be applied to faith quite easily. That said faith is inherantly unreasonable (this includes atheism btw).


Alright. I'm done now, should I put them back in the drawer with the can opener?
A Marxist is never done with her tools.


Correct. But metaphysics = immaterial. Material = physics. So, yes, religion is belief in the immaterial which is non-materialist. This isn't weird philosophy jargon it's simple logic.
Religion isn't necessarily based on immaterial things. Your cosmology can be 100% materialist (rejection of the unseen is not rejection of God if you see God in material).


Stop trying to justify religion.
Stop trying to cram all of Marxism into your little atheist cult.


Religion has had years to stick its foot down the throat of billions of people and now that people are pissed off about being treated like slaves
Except the clergies in most of the world aren't the ones doing the oppression. They're just validating it. Most people care more about plutocrats than theocrats. Quit acting like this is the nineteenth century.


religious people are all "oh no! we aren't doing anything, we're just believing! let us believe!" Well, you can believe all you want. But don't tell me you're a materialist and then pray to a man in the sky.
My God forbids me looking to the sky and calling His Name. Get it right. Also aren't you so good little atheist, anyone who doesn't believe in your metaphysical system can't be materialists or Marxist. Nobody buys that except bourgeoisie atheists and teenage radicals unfamiliar with history.

[Klaatu]

Please vote in this poll about the possibility of existence of life force
http://www.revleft.com/vb/there-animating-impetus-t182840/index.html?t=182840

[argeiphontes]

I don't really care for dialectical materialism as a theory and don't really consider it to be the essential thing about the Marxist tradition. This is just my opinion of course, but it's not off-topic because first we have to define what being Marxist means.

(It seems to me that it's much more likely that a Hegelian dialectical idealism has any explanatory power or truth to it, since dialectical materialism appears teleological, yet only sentience can have true telos.)

I consider myself a Marxist because of (my perception of) the explanatory power of historical materialism; the understanding that humans are embedded in a matrix of determinants not of their own choosing, of which at least one is their socioeconomic condition and relations of production. It's also been a long time since Marx and one show of the strength of his analysis is that it's now a living tradition. I don't expect it to remain static or be stretched into a totalization; quite the opposite, as with all human social thought and theory. Capitalist economists, e.g. also think they have "laws" about economic behavior but it's just apologist bullshit because economics is a social science.

Why a socioeconomic theory that operates at one level of explanation necessarily implies a particular metaphysics or cosmology escapes me. What metaphysics or cosmology has to say about emergent properties of living beings is also not exactly clear. Even if all the quarks are just monads of the Holy Spirit or we're living in a computer simulation whose native resolution is the Planck length, what bearing does that have on the fact that some guy at wants me to enrich him with my toil or that I eat sorbet and avoid ice cream? Only in the most removed way possible, perhaps, as necessary preconditions of being able to choose or experience at all.

Finally, I think that rejection of religion by Marxist politics has been a terrible strategic mistake. Religious people, and secular humanists perhaps, are the social groups that are least likely to be seduced by commodity fetishism and have the strongest ethical reasons for revolution. I haven't heard of any religions preaching social Darwinism for your fellow man; even the ancient Maxims of Delphi admonish one to "Share the load of the unfortunate" and "Be overcome by Justice."

My own religious beliefs would go into the Pagan thread btw, and do have empirical coroboration. I still like my Church and State separate though, and I'm usually defending against Christian domination, so it's interesting to be looking at it from another angle...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Finally, I think that rejection of religion by Marxist politics has been a terrible strategic mistake. Religious people, and secular humanists perhaps, are the social groups that are least likely to be seduced by commodity fetishism and have the strongest ethical reasons for revolution. I haven't heard of any religions preaching social Darwinism for your fellow man; even the ancient Maxims of Delphi admonish one to "Share the load of the unfortunate" and "Be overcome by Justice."

Communism is not resisting "seduction by commodity fetishism", and there is no real correlation between religion and seeing through the fetishism of the commodity, as Marx uses the term. Nor is communism asceticism, which you probably meant to say. Good grief, communism is opposite. Communism is not about the rich having fewer pies, but the workers killing the rich so they can eat all the pies themselves.

Not is communism about morality. In fact, the one thing that should be expected from a consistent communist is that they stay away from morality, that idealist morass of the old world that has brought nothing to the workers' movement but misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and racism.

[argeiphontes]

^ I didn't mean to suggest that communism has anything to do with asceticism, but that the people who are least likely to identify with capitalist aspirations might be the easiest to radicalize. I'm no fan of asceticism, personally. It's just the hedonism of self-denial ;)1

I would be interested to see an argument about *ism that didn't reference ethics in any way. I don't mean any conventional conservative Christian crap involving the travesties you mentioned, but something about how things should be distributed equally, to each according to their needs, for example. The Marxist maxim sounds like ethics to me. ;)1

[Thirsty Crow]

Finally, I think that rejection of religion by Marxist politics has been a terrible strategic mistake. Religious people, and secular humanists perhaps, are the social groups that are least likely to be seduced by commodity fetishism and have the strongest ethical reasons for revolution.
I don't think you understand what the term commodity fetishism refers to.

In short, it is nothing like the phenomena encapsulate under the term consumerism. Rather, it is the result of the commodity form itself and the peculiar way people organize social production in capitalism, when it is "apparent", or it merely seems so, that what is the product of social relations (value, not as in "moral/ethical value, but as in "value of a commodity") is in fact only a consequence of natural properties and processes. It can be ascertained, and indeed this has been done, that it isn't so.

[Orange Juche]

As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth. Every cleric is an enemy of the proletariat, and must be treated like any other class enemy.

I call bullshit. How exactly do we "treat a class enemy", and what justification is there for doing anything to stop people from privately organizing to privately preach metaphysical beliefs, no matter how absurd you may find them?

[Dagoth Ur]

Clerics are an part of old ways though. Religion must be put into the hands of the masses.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Maybe off topic a bit but...

Most Marxists are atheists.The tools of historical materialism, when applied to relogion, rapidly corrode most belief in a "revealed truth" "god was made in man's image", etc. There is a tradition of Marxist "heretics" who leave the door open for spirituality, if not religion. This includes people like Walter Benjamin, who combined Marxism with a sort of messianic Judaism, the philosopher Ernst Bloch who accepted the Jungian archetypes but thought Jung was reactionary and discussed a "principle of hope" which underlies religion., and Cyril Smith, who discussed the connections between Marxism and Hegelianism and the 17th century hermetic tradition.

[Orange Juche]

Clerics are an part of old ways though. Religion must be put into the hands of the masses.

A number religious denominations at least in Christianity are, I don't know about other religions. They have clerics still, though, but the people of those churches elect the governing body.

[argeiphontes]

I don't think you understand what the term commodity fetishism refers to.

You're probably right. I always assumed it was ascribing properties to commodities that they don't possess in a straight-forward/prima-facie kind of way, like a shaman might use the bones of an animal as a sort of 'fetish' in order to try to get some of the power of the animal.

So then it's natural for me to connect this to the false self-fulfillment offered by capitalism thru buying (literally) their crap. I'll try to be more precise in the future and/or not throw terminology around so lightly...

edit: yeah, thanks again, I've reread your definition a few times and might even get it :) It's almost like I had an inverse or backwards definition for some reason...

[argeiphontes]

....the philosopher Ernst Bloch who accepted the Jungian archetypes but thought Jung was reactionary and discussed a "principle of hope" which underlies religion...

I'll have to look into Bloch, thanks for the reference. But I'm more or less ready to stand and deliver my own opinion that Jung is revolutionary and not reactionary in the sense that a concept of Species-Being with a predetermined evolutionary human endowment limits the amount that we can be exploited. There's a limit to how much a person can take before they revolt. You can see this in job satisfaction surveys and the fact that many people are quite openly engaging in sabotage type behavior in their jobs. (There's a recent survey I'm thinking of, but can't remember where I saw the link...) I'm one of those people :laugh:

I'm stretching but I'd go so far as to suggest that Jung, Darwin, and Marx were all concerned with the basis or grounds of our being in their respective (psychological, biological, socioeconomic) but materialist ways. Just because ancient Greek mythology is being used as a model doesn't mean it doesn't represent deeply evolved patterns, it's a model or heuristic. Human beings are *not* infinitely malleable; I don't think it's a coincidence that there's a rise in mental illness as capitalist development goes on. Mainstream psychology claims the plethora of diagnoses in DSM-4/5 without thinking that maybe a proliferation of causes and diagnoses says something about the underlying paradigm itself.

Along the same lines, I think religion is a natural function of humanity and can't be eradicated, though I do agree (with 9mm in the Pagan thread IIRC) that in a better society there'll be less reason for people to "turn to God/religion" just because they're in temporarily bad circumstances. There's still (always) the question of ultimate causes and existential problems.

The scientific fact is that 13.7 billion years ago, the universe expanded from a single, infinitely-dense point in the middle of some primordial Nothing. After something as uncanny as that, anything is possible... :grin:

[Decolonize The Left]

In spite of reason is incorrect, in spite of information is correct. Reason can be applied to faith quite easily. That said faith is inherantly unreasonable (this includes atheism btw).

You can't reason without information... You're just pushing yourself further into the corner with this sort of pseudo-justification for religion.

You just said that faith is belief in spite of information. Well, without information you can't have reason. So what I said is correct: faith is belief in spite of reason. Also, you have just acknowledged (faith = belief without information) that religion is a bunch of made up nonsense.


Religion isn't necessarily based on immaterial things. Your cosmology can be 100% materialist (rejection of the unseen is not rejection of God if you see God in material).

Religion is always based upon immaterial things as it always posits beyond the material world (god, afterlife, spirits, souls, etc...). Claiming that these things are material is a pretty lame after-the-fact attempt at legitimization. Furthermore, given that there's an abundant lack of proof for all things religious, your claim that these stories are real is even more astounding.


Except the clergies in most of the world aren't the ones doing the oppression. They're just validating it. Most people care more about plutocrats than theocrats. Quit acting like this is the nineteenth century.

Lol. 'Don't get mad at the religious people, they're just justifying all the bad shit. And touching little kids at the same time. Jeez man... '

Seriously. This is ceasing to be an intelligent discussion and devolving rather quick. Are you honestly attempting to frame the religious institutions in our world as good and righteous?


Also aren't you so good little atheist, anyone who doesn't believe in your metaphysical system can't be materialists or Marxist. Nobody buys that except bourgeoisie atheists and teenage radicals unfamiliar with history.

Metaphysical is not materialist. I don't have a metaphysical position; you do. And it's totally worthless and bunk.


My God forbids me looking to the sky and calling His Name. Get it right.

The fact that you're taking orders from a made up guy in the sky is psychotic.

[Dagoth Ur]

You can't reason without information... You're just pushing yourself further into the corner with this sort of pseudo-justification for religion.
Reason is just a process. It's aided by information but does not require it.


You just said that faith is belief in spite of information. Well, without information you can't have reason. So what I said is correct: faith is belief in spite of reason. Also, you have just acknowledged (faith = belief without information) that religion is a bunch of made up nonsense.
No I've acknowledged that having faith is impossible in the face of certain information. If I knew God existed it wouldn't be faith at all. "In spite of" implies that I'm rejecting information that counters my faith, when in fact all evidence against my God makes my faith stronger. Faith is overcoming doubt.


Religion is always based upon immaterial things as it always posits beyond the material world (god, afterlife, spirits, souls, etc...). Claiming that these things are material is a pretty lame after-the-fact attempt at legitimization. Furthermore, given that there's an abundant lack of proof for all things religious, your claim that these stories are real is even more astounding.
They're completely real since they're interpretive riddles and life-lessons. Trying to use religion to build some history of man is dumb. Religious people invented History afterall.


Lol. 'Don't get mad at the religious people, they're just justifying all the bad shit. And touching little kids at the same time. Jeez man... '
This just in guys, belief in God means you rape or support raping kids.


Seriously. This is ceasing to be an intelligent discussion and devolving rather quick. Are you honestly attempting to frame the religious institutions in our world as good and righteous?
No I'm just not pretending they're worse than the liberal capitalists. At least religious organizations relieve some of the burden of capitalism for the poor.


Metaphysical is not materialist. I don't have a metaphysical position; you do. And it's totally worthless and bunk.
Atheism is materialist. It's a metaphysical position purely. Also that you fail to derive value from faith doesn't change that many of us do.


The fact that you're taking orders from a made up guy in the sky is psychotic.
That you cannot read but post on a text forum is impressive. Allah is explicitly not a sky god, a man god, a throne god, or anything else so small.

[Decolonize The Left]

Reason is just a process. It's aided by information but does not require it.

There is no such thing as reasoning without information as both terms are completely enclosed within our linguistic world structure. Offer an example if you think otherwise.


No I've acknowledged that having faith is impossible in the face of certain information. If I knew God existed it wouldn't be faith at all. "In spite of" implies that I'm rejecting information that counters my faith, when in fact all evidence against my God makes my faith stronger. Faith is overcoming doubt.

Why do you need to overcome doubt? Why are you so weak that doubt would cripple your ability to function? Why is doubt, something so honestly human, so inappropriate to you?


They're completely real since they're interpretive riddles and life-lessons. Trying to use religion to build some history of man is dumb. Religious people invented History afterall.

Riddles and life-lessons are real, sure, but that doesn't make the assumptions upon which they are based any more real. One could interpret life lessons from Lord of the Rings, am I to assume that Middle Earth exists as well?


This just in guys, belief in God means you rape or support raping kids.

Lol. You were the one backing the church, not me. See below, you do it again.


No I'm just not pretending they're worse than the liberal capitalists. At least religious organizations relieve some of the burden of capitalism for the poor.

The poor don't need your self-hating charity, they are shamed by it. What they need is actual material change.


Atheism is materialist. It's a metaphysical position purely. Also that you fail to derive value from faith doesn't change that many of us do.

Atheism is, in general, a denial of metaphysics. Also, I can derive value from a fart. Is my fart holy now?


That you cannot read but post on a text forum is impressive. Allah is explicitly not a sky god, a man god, a throne god, or anything else so small.

I'm not really concerned with how you define the object of your psychosis.


Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) ; Seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).