Would you Ban Christmas?

[Red Economist]

The USSR banned Christmas as part of it's anti-religious campaign (and so Christians ended up Celebrating new years instead). I think this was the standard by which all other communist states followed.

The way people have celebrated Christmas has long been an issue for Christians (some saying it's getting too commercialized, others saying it's not being celebrated enough due to secularism). But to be honest- I've never actually seen it raised by the Far Left, even through it is a 'freedom of religion' vs. state atheism issue.

I read about 'Black Friday' in America (the first day of Christmas sales) and the violence that goes on as people literally storm the stores to get gifts- which frankly seems absurd. This is something that has started to happen in the UK, but is still in it's infancy.

I was wondering if people on Revleft had strong views on Christmas because of Atheism or Anti-Consumerism, etc. or whether it is just kind of a political 'non-issue'. (personally, my answers 'no', but I would want to change the way it's celebrated so it's not so consumerist).

[helot]

I don't celebrate christmas but to ban it? Why don't we also ban people's birthdays.


Here in the UK Christmas isn't actually that religious more it's a tradtion. There's not an atheist i know that doesn't celebrate it, hell some even have nativity scene decorations which makes me giggle. Any calls to ban christmas to me just stinks of wanting people to work more days in a year. I don't want that... i want all religious holidays off work :p

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No? Why on earth would anyone do that?

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

No, of course not. We shouldn't ban any feasts just because they are religious in nature. Perhaps a less consumerist version of Christmas would be in order though. I definetely oppose state atheism though. Church and state should be seperate, this means that the state shouldn't espouse ANY religious views, this includes atheism in my opinion. In fact, many Socialists in Europe caused a split in their nations' labour movement by being too anticlerical. Hence the Catholic Unions came into being and workers were divided. This only serves to help the bourgeoisie.

[consuming negativity]

I feel like advocating the policies of the Grinch is a bit too evil, even for us godless communists. Although, according to American right-wingers, the war on Christmas started with "happy holidays" :rolleyes:

[motion denied]

Well, we all know that Santa lives off slave elf labour, so...

[Flying Purple People Eater]

^

That reminded me of the weird racist shit that goes down in Holland for Christmas. Sinterklaus and his merry band of.... black helpers?

[helot]

^

That reminded me of the weird racist shit that goes down in Holland for Christmas. Sinterklaus and his merry band of.... black helpers?


fucking blackface loving dutch! WTF?

[Comrade Jacob]

I would move it to the 21st/22nd/23rd & make it more festivity based than the current Christo-capitalism.
The name would be changed to Yule or Winter-solstice.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I absolutely love Christmas! So no way! :mad:

[helot]

I would move it to the 21st/22nd & make it more festivity based than the current Christo-capitalism.
The name would be changed to Yule or Winter-solstice.


That's lame.


I'd extend it so it's 1st-31st december :p


I'd also keep referring to it as christmas to piss you off... but everyone else will continue referring to it as christmas 'cause they think there's not really any point in changing its name.

[Queen Mab]

Huh?

We're communists, not puritans.

[Taters]

Of course! We should declare an unceasing people's war against Christmas, as we do against all reactionary holidays!

Ok, but really the reason we don't discuss this is because it's one of those bullshit news talking points that some people pretend to be offended by.

[Comrade Jacob]

I'd also keep referring to it as christmas to piss you off

Arrgh I'm so pissed off bro! Y U do dis to me? :mad:

[A Psychological Symphony]

To push for the banning of any tradition seems like the exact opposite of where we wanted to go. Why should you or me control what others do?

[Sinister Intents]

I love Christmas :) I call it 'Yule' though. Their is absolutely no problem with celebrating a holiday with your family. I wouldn't ban Christmas or any other holiday for that matter

[Remus Bleys]

Of course! You dare to celebrate christmas ill havve you publicly shot!

But seriously I had no idea the ussr did that, do you have a source?

I can only imagine what albania did *shudders*

[BIXX]

Boycott Santa.

In all seriousness though, I think that Christmas itself prolly wouldn't be a thing (at least, how we recognize it) in a post-capitalist world, so it's a moot issue IMO.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

who the fuck are we to decide what is banned or not?

people in wider society will have the power to decide what they celebrate and what we don't.

I would oppose christmas being banned as a holiday just cos, it's such a great opportunity to get together with my family and I really cherish that, and tbh I don't know that many people who celebrate the religious elements. I don't even know what happened at christmas for it to be a religious holiday in much detail, I just like eating and seeing my family.

But tbh, even if I didn't celebrate christmas, i'd vigorously oppose anybody trying to ban it just because, it's a dickhead, arrogant move for people to think they can ban shit like that on a whim.

[Red Economist]

Remus Bleys
But seriously I had no idea the ussr did that, do you have a source?

It was something I originally learned browsing Wikipedia a while back. At the time I looked it up and there was a blog entry dedicated to Soviet New Years cards...
Type in "Soviet Union Banned Christmas" in Google and you get alot of stuff. This is by far the most detailed link I found after a quick search;

http://www.psmag.com/culture/whats-real-war-christmas-look-like-70524/

Christmas was replaced by "Days of Industrialization".... hmmm... :glare:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Keep Christ out of Yule.

Seriously though, I think "banning Christmas" would miss the point. After all, isn't communism just the generalization of Christmas? The "Holiday Spirit" as the guiding principle of social life generally?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Christmas was replaced by "Days of Industrialization".... hmmm... :glare:

Pretty much says it all. Communism is about dissolving social relations. This would most probably include ending or at the least giving new content/meaning to traditions such as Christmas, but that's not the same as banning traditions, if such a thing is even possible. It's like banning the market without having abolished wage-labour and exchange - the result is only a black market.

[Tim Cornelis]

My whole family, mother's and father's side, is atheist. Christmas is more like Thanksgiving and cozy little lights in the dark winter days to us.

Banning is ridiculous, if people enjoy it and it doesn't harm anyone, let them.

[Skyhilist]

Counterrevolutionary religious fundamentalists will cease to exist if we just ban the shit out of everything that's ever had vaguely religious content, right? I mean Albania did that and just look how successful they -- oh wait, never mind.

[tachosomoza]

Absolutely not, it'd be an extremely badly received move and would be easy propaganda for reactionaries.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Absolutely not, it'd be an extremely badly received move and would be easy propaganda for reactionaries.

I think this is besides the point, communists shouldn't aim for banning things in general

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Who the fuck voted yes?

How would you enforce a ban on Christimas?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought we were all into this Cultural Marxist plot to erase Christmas and replace it with Winterval? ;)

Also, the Central Committee of the Cultural Marxist International haven't sent me instructions, my official card, nor the big bag of Moscow gold they promised.

[Zukunftsmusik]

From libcom's facebook page:

Merry Christmas from Mexico City, where people protesting against public transport price rises burned the Coca-Cola Christmas tree:
https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/s403x403/527061_10152075678231023_134440248_n.jpg

[Rafiq]

In Russia, Christmas had a different cultural context. It wasn't "banned", but it wasn't a recognized holiday by the state. It was a holiday deeply religious in nature, as opposed to Christmas in the modern U.S.

Anti religious campaigns would only be as harsh as they were in the Soviet Union in places like the middle east, and perhaps the American south, small, isolated rural towns otherwise.

[Sabot Cat]

Who plans to ban Christmas other than villains from cartoons intended for small children? Well, besides the USSR apparently.

[Glitchcraft]

Cmon people. Santa Clause is an oppressive tyrant ruling over the North Pole where he enslaves elvish workers. The condition of the elvish workers is a year round hell.
But abolishing Christmas will not liberate the elves but rather force them into further isolation and poverty. We need to support an elvish liberation movement for the political overthrow of Santa and the self determination of the elvish workers.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, because of mindless, irritating Christmas songs.


Who plans to ban Christmas other than villains from cartoons intended for small children? Well, besides the USSR apparently.
Some rather unsavory characters.


Who the fuck voted yes?

How would you enforce a ban on Christimas?
Me.

By gunz.

[Sabot Cat]

Cmon people. Santa Clause is an oppressive tyrant ruling over the North Pole where he enslaves elvish workers. The condition of the elvish workers is a year round hell.
But abolishing Christmas will not liberate the elves but rather force them into further isolation and poverty. We need to support an elvish liberation movement for the political overthrow of Santa and the self determination of the elvish workers.

Unfortunately, most of the anti-Santa elvish movements have been primarily reactionary and nationalist, often harkening back to the days of Rivendell as a golden age despite the feudal means of production.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The Grinch was a reactionary.

[Glitchcraft]

Unfortunately, most of the anti-Santa elvish movements have been primarily reactionary and nationalist, often harkening back to the days of Rivendell as a golden age despite the feudal means of production.
Yes there certainly are backward elements to some of the elvish liberation movements; xenophobic attitudes towards gnomes and fairies, elf on elf violence, reindeer cruelty, the elven cartels underground peppermint labs.
And then there's always the same old arguments: Do the elves constitute a nation onto them selves or are they a caste of special repression? Is the Elven Republic of the North Pole (ERNP) a theocracy or feudal republic?

And what about the Santa/Easter Bunny pact in 1934?

[Radio Spartacus]

Abolish christmas? What the fuck are we, cartoon villains?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The bigger question is this: how on earth would you enforce a ban on a holiday? Set up a billion cameras and arrest anyone whom your spies say is celebrating? Seems very wasteful of resources. Along this route: what on earth would be done with the people who celebrate? Sent off to re-education camps, imprisoned? Again, seems highly unnecessary, especially with that counterrevolution always buzzing about.

[Dagoth Ur]

While I understand the USSR for "banning" xmas, I don't support banning cultural feast days. Plus who doesn't love a feast? Humbugs that's who!

[Remus Bleys]

While I understand the USSR for "banning" xmas, I don't support banning cultural feast days. Plus who doesn't love a feast? Humbugs that's who!you realize how contradictory this statement is, right?

[Grif 2200]

While I don't condone the materialism of Christmas, it seems foolish to ban it. While it has trancended it's original religious connotations and become a celebration of wealth, greed and goods, I think it is yet to become something to be banned.

[Tenka]

No I don't see any grounds for banning the old pagan festivals of the people if they be jolly in nature. I much prefer to call it Yuletide though.

[Ismail]

Counterrevolutionary religious fundamentalists will cease to exist if we just ban the shit out of everything that's ever had vaguely religious content, right? I mean Albania did that and just look how successful they -- oh wait, never mind."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. The same source notes that many Albanian youths saw these older folks praying and thought it all weird, since they knew nothing of religion growing up. Even today most Albanians are agnostic.

So yeah, worked pretty well.

As for what Albania did in-re Christmas, all religiously-based holidays were prohibited, including Ramadan and the like. If said holidays involved not eating certain foods, efforts were made to have said foods given out in factories and whatnot so people could demonstrate they were no longer bound by religious norms.

[Remus Bleys]

And what if they refused and went ahead and celebrated holidays?

[Ismail]

And what if they refused and went ahead and celebrated holidays?They'd be publicly criticized in front of other workers and encouraged to overcome superstitious beliefs. There were various museums made specifically to counter religious claims, and many books printed as well.

As a note, older people were allowed to continue worshipping in places. As one foreign traveler recalled, "Poxi's [an Albanian guide] grandfather, still alive, was passionately Moslem. 'He washes himself all over five times a day.' Poxi's father entered the mosque on special occasions. Poxi never went near the place. 'It is for old people, I laugh at it too much. The old people in my village pray for rain, but everyone knows that it is meteorology, not God, which brings the rain. We laugh at these old people, but we don't harm them. They have been left behind, no one worries about them any more.'" (Gardiner, Curtain Calls: Travels in Albania, Romania and Bulgaria, 1977, pp. 45-46.)

Likewise Edwin E. Jacques (a minister who wrote at length on Albania) writes in his book The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present (Vol. II, 1995, pp. 563-564) that, "A visitor [in 1986], seeing the icons and paintings in the museum replacing Korcha's Orthodox cathedral, asked the custodian, 'Do people come here to see these religious articles and nostalgically remember the past?' He replied confidently, 'Only the old people, but they are dying off. Soon we will have abolished religion altogether.' When reminded of the persistence of Christian faith among young as well as old in the Soviet Union and China, he remarked scornfully, 'Those revisionists should have done like we did, and exterminate religion once and for all.'"

[sosolo]

As for what Albania did in-re Christmas, all religiously-based holidays were prohibited, including Ramadan and the like. If said holidays involved not eating certain foods, efforts were made to have said foods given out in factories and whatnot so people could demonstrate they were no longer bound by religious norms.

I'm sorry, but forcing food on people and shaming them before other workers seems like a phenomenal waste of time, energy and resources. Who gives a shit if people don't eat until sundown? Albania had bigger fish to fry.

Sosolo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Remus Bleys]

Yeah and then litter the thread wih albanian facts that is only vaguely related to the thread.
Do you have any other defence?

[Rafiq]

Christmas as we know it is a relatively new phenomena.

[Ismail]

Yeah and then litter the thread wih albanian facts that is only vaguely related to the thread.I wasn't the one who brought up Albania in the thread...


Do you have any other defence?I wasn't defending anything, merely giving information.

[Remus Bleys]

I shoulda send mo. That line about old people being able to practice religion was irrelevant.

[Ismail]

I shoulda send mo. That line about old people being able to practice religion was irrelevant.Well when you write "I can only imagine what albania did *shudders*" you make it sound like the Albanian army set fire to entire forests to deprive the masses of possible Christmas trees while student youths shot people at will for holding religious beliefs.

[A Psychological Symphony]

This is one of the most ridiculous debates I've ever seen. The fact that anybody on here supports the banning of a holiday blows my mind. Public shaming if somebody wants to believe something you don't? Entirely ridiculous on all grounds.

Fuck controlling the people we want to free the people.

[Sea]

Yeah and then litter the thread wih albanian facts that is only vaguely related to the thread.The thread is about banning Christmas. Christmas is a religious holiday. So yeah, it's pretty fucking related.
"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. The same source notes that many Albanian youths saw these older folks praying and thought it all weird, since they knew nothing of religion growing up. Even today most Albanians are agnostic.

So yeah, worked pretty well.

As for what Albania did in-re Christmas, all religiously-based holidays were prohibited, including Ramadan and the like. If said holidays involved not eating certain foods, efforts were made to have said foods given out in factories and whatnot so people could demonstrate they were no longer bound by religious norms.Goddammit. As I was reading through this thread, I thought "hmm, maybe I should reply to this... but first I'll check to make sure Ismail didn't already" and guess what!

Way to steal my thunder. :sneaky:
I'm sorry, but forcing food on people and shaming them before other workers seems like a phenomenal waste of time, energy and resources. Who gives a shit if people don't eat until sundown? Albania had bigger fish to fry.

Sosolo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)Forcing food on people? Nobody has said that before you. You get an F for reading comprehension. Freely giving out forbidden food is a creative and nondestructive way to subvert religious prejudice. Do you not agree?

Religion ought to unquestionably be banned. Religious holidays, if they cannot be feasibly banned, ought to be forcefully secularized. Remember, Remus, we do not uphold the "freedom to be reactionary". Cease your hypocrisy and admit this. Granted, I do not expect that you will abandon your bourgeois-religious prejudice based on some post on an internet forum, but your actions in this thread seem to poke quite a large hole in your statement that "I don't think I need to be 100% class conscious in order to understand and propagate marxist theory". To understand Marxist theory you must strive to have the understanding of one who is 100% class concious, or if not 100%, you must at least have strive to have the understanding of one who holds the Marxist position on such important questions as the nature of religion, and the merits of materialism over idealism. And what of propagating Marxist theory? To propagate Marxist theory you must propagate the antireligious content of it. Otherwise it is not Marxist theory that you are understanding and propagating, rather, it is a "selectively edited" theory that removes from Marxism some of its most important philosophical and political content. I really don't mind that you "can't shake" religion, but in order to be anything resembling a Marxist you must, as one indispensable requirement, think the same thoughts and speak the same words as one who can and has.

[blake 3:17]

I would move it to the 21st/22nd/23rd & make it more festivity based than the current Christo-capitalism.
The name would be changed to Yule or Winter-solstice.

awwwwwwwwww --- wreck my birthday will you?


Jesus, I hate Christmas.

[bcbm]

Christmas is a religious holiday.

nominally. i think, like almost all holidays (of which there are sadly too few these days), it is a religious guise wrapped around a much older holiday whose purpose is to hang out with your friends and family, eat great food and drink until you happily pass out. in a better world i think we should have far more festivals and holidays, not less.

[blake 3:17]

nominally. i think, like almost all holidays (of which there are sadly too few these days), it is a religious guise wrapped around a much older holiday whose purpose is to hang out with your friends and family, eat great food and drink until you happily pass out. in a better world i think we should have far more festivals and holidays, not less.

Sorry I'm a Grinch

[bcbm]

then you didnt drink enough

[Niall]

I voted no but Id change how its celebrated. A friend in work hates it. One of the other teachers says to him, do you not like getting presents? Just shows what people think Christmas is all about these days

[ed miliband]

I voted no but Id change how its celebrated. A friend in work hates it. One of the other teachers says to him, do you not like getting presents? Just shows what people think Christmas is all about these days

you sound like a christian, "oh, all these people - they only care about presents, they forget the real meaning of christmas!"

[Tim Cornelis]

The thread is about banning Christmas. Christmas is a religious holiday. So yeah, it's pretty fucking related.Goddammit. As I was reading through this thread, I thought "hmm, maybe I should reply to this... but first I'll check to make sure Ismail didn't already" and guess what!

Way to steal my thunder. :sneaky:Forcing food on people? Nobody has said that before you. You get an F for reading comprehension. Freely giving out forbidden food is a creative and nondestructive way to subvert religious prejudice. Do you not agree?

Religion ought to unquestionably be banned. Religious holidays, if they cannot be feasibly banned, ought to be forcefully secularized. Remember, Remus, we do not uphold the "freedom to be reactionary". Cease your hypocrisy and admit this. Granted, I do not expect that you will abandon your bourgeois-religious prejudice based on some post on an internet forum, but your actions in this thread seem to poke quite a large hole in your statement that "I don't think I need to be 100% class conscious in order to understand and propagate marxist theory". To understand Marxist theory you must strive to have the understanding of one who is 100% class concious, or if not 100%, you must at least have strive to have the understanding of one who holds the Marxist position on such important questions as the nature of religion, and the merits of materialism over idealism. And what of propagating Marxist theory? To propagate Marxist theory you must propagate the antireligious content of it. Otherwise it is not Marxist theory that you are understanding and propagating, rather, it is a "selectively edited" theory that removes from Marxism some of its most important philosophical and political content. I really don't mind that you "can't shake" religion, but in order to be anything resembling a Marxist you must, as one indispensable requirement, think the same thoughts and speak the same words as one who can and has.

It's highly ironic that you preach about Marxism being this and that while espousing a vulgar interpretation yourself.


First, the buzzword use of 'reactionary'. The upholding of religion or the degree of irreligion is never a means whereby you can determine reaction. What makes a reactionary is by counter-acting revolutionary struggles. An anti-racist, anti-sexist catholic worker advocating a stateless, classless, moneyless society and acting in accordance with this is in no imaginable way "reactionary".

Secondly, your insistence on Marxism is ironic because a Marxist hypothesis of religion would be that (organised) religion would die out with communism 'automatically'. There would be no need to ban religion because religion would not survive the motions of history and social dynamics of a classless society. You speak of the merits of materialism over idealism while upholding idealism by advocating a ban on religion to have it disappear.

Thirdly, how are you going to enforce this ban on religion? The vast majority of workers is religious, which implies that in your imagined workers' state the workers are not actually in control. Furthermore, in a newly established stateless society what instruments would the minority of atheists have at their disposal to force the majority of religious people to not practice their beliefs?


Incidentally, fasting is not equal to religious prejudice.

Your whole position is poorly thought out, contradictory, and vulgar Marxism.

[Niall]

you sound like a christian, "oh, all these people - they only care about presents, they forget the real meaning of christmas!"
and what? I dont like the commercial bullshit surrounding it, it does take away friom what Christmas is all about. If everyone who spent all this money on presents and such like spent a tenth of it supporting good causes, it would be much better

[bricolage]

and what? I dont like the commercial bullshit surrounding it, it does take away friom what Christmas is all about. If everyone who spent all this money on presents and such like spent a tenth of it supporting good causes, it would be much better
what is christmas all about? the birth of our lord and saviour jesus christ? i'll take presents over that... and I'm someone that fucking hates christmas (except for trees and christmas ales)

[Remus Bleys]

The thread is about banning Christmas. Christmas is a religious holiday. So yeah, it's pretty fucking related.
How is random old people praying in the woods related to banning christmas?
And while that christmas is debatable in the west, id say sea is correct in christmas being purely religious in a place like albania at the time

[Comrade #138672]

No, but socialism would inevitably change the character of Christmas.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

No, but socialism would inevitably change the character of Christmas.
Christmas would be whatever each person wanted it to be.

[Niall]

what is christmas all about? the birth of our lord and saviour jesus christ? i'll take presents over that... and I'm someone that fucking hates christmas (except for trees and christmas ales)
Fair enough, thats your choice. Originally, Christmas was about the birth of Jesus though I think there should be more to it than just that. It should be a time when we look out for others - I know we should always do so but not everyone does, not everyone can - less fortunate than ourselves. Id never knock anyone for how they celebrate Christmas, but the whole commercial side of it pisses me off

[Zukunftsmusik]

Clearly, communists should celebrate festivus instead.

[Ismail]

First, the buzzword use of 'reactionary'. The upholding of religion or the degree of irreligion is never a means whereby you can determine reaction. What makes a reactionary is by counter-acting revolutionary struggles. An anti-racist, anti-sexist catholic worker advocating a stateless, classless, moneyless society and acting in accordance with this is in no imaginable way "reactionary".And no one claimed that such a person would be reactionary. In Albania there were a number of religious figures who took part in the National Liberation War, for instance.

The point is that religion is an ultimately reactionary force, if for no other reason than its metaphysical character. Since the abolition of religion is one of the tasks of the new society, as Marx noted, reaction does seek to use religion as a counter-revolutionary force.


Thirdly, how are you going to enforce this ban on religion? The vast majority of workers is religious, which implies that in your imagined workers' state the workers are not actually in control.The vanguard is comprised of the advanced workers, who lead the working-class as a whole, they don't operate on the tail-end of it and make excuses or cover for backward beliefs. The majority of workers, at this hypothetical point, were evidently behind the concept of private property and under the almost exclusive sway of bourgeois ideologies not long before. No doubt after the revolution a sizable amount of workers will continue to be under the influence of such a concept and the ideologies which seek to legitimize it.

As for "how are you going to enforce this ban on religion?" I think the USSR, Albania, etc. give obvious answers: education combined with administrative measures against the reactionary clergy and the like.

[Tim Cornelis]

And no one claimed that such a person would be reactionary. In Albania there were a number of religious figures who took part in the National Liberation War, for instance.

Sea did. To justify restricting the practice of religion he said "Remus, we do not uphold the "freedom to be reactionary".".


The point is that religion is an ultimately reactionary force, if for no other reason than its metaphysical character. Since the abolition of religion is one of the tasks of the new society, as Marx noted, reaction does seek to use religion as a counter-revolutionary force.

The abolition of religion is not a task of a new society (idealism), it follows from a new society (materialism).


The vanguard is comprised of the advanced workers, who lead the working-class as a whole, they don't operate on the tail-end of it and make excuses or cover for backward beliefs. The majority of workers, at this hypothetical point, were evidently behind the concept of private property and under the almost exclusive sway of bourgeois ideologies not long before. No doubt after the revolution a sizable amount of workers will continue to be under the influence of such a concept and the ideologies which seek to legitimize it.

As for "how are you going to enforce this ban on religion?" I think the USSR, Albania, etc. give obvious answers: education combined with administrative measures against the reactionary clergy and the like.

Your conception of the vanguard is elitist and retains oppressive class relations. Power is concentrated in the hands of the upper layers of a political party and is not subject to external control. It wields power from above and imposes its will on the disempowered disenfranchised dispossessed working class. So logically, in your vulgar interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it's feasible for the minority to impose irreligion on the majority.

As for the enforcement, I asked about a stateless society.

[Gemscopiscan]

Religion employs many different channels to spread its influence, both overt and covert. The church(religion) has historically been a means of subversion against governments. (South America) Allowing its means of generating new recruits, attracted to the lights, bells, and whistles, is inviting the failure of whatever competing systems put in place. Proof of this is the question, how would such a ban be enforced? Because, it is basically a given that the church(religion) through its systems of rituals is constantly working towards their ideal society. Of course, it couldn't outright in any humane way be enforced. But relegating it to private practice while elevating knowledge and reason could help. I voted yes.

[Ismail]

The abolition of religion is not a task of a new society (idealism), it follows from a new society (materialism).It is, in fact, the task of the new society that has overthrown capitalism to get rid of all its remnants. The exploiting classes and their supporters do not magically give up their struggle against the proletariat just because the latter are in power, but in fact continue their struggle, as Lenin pointed out. There is also the task of shaping the consciousness of men, of which the struggle against religion plays a major role. The idea that someone with an idealist level of consciousness can build communism has nothing in common with materialism.

Of course you have in mind something different, a leap from capitalism to an anarchist/communist(?) society, whereas for us religion will already have withered and likely died by the time that stage of human society is reached.

[bcbm]

Originally, Christmas was about the birth of Jesus though

nah it was a winter solstice festival.

and to everyone complaining about commercialism, etc, like obviously in a communist society of abundance we wouldn't have people trampling each other for discounts at malls.

[Ele'ill]

at malls.

malls though will be banned

[A Psychological Symphony]

malls though will be banned

Nothing should be "banned". A mall would become obsolete on its own.

What power will be enforcing these restrictions? Who will have the authority in this scenerio to enforce his/her will on others?

[DOOM]

Why should one ban christmas?
Christmas isn't that much of a religious holiday anymore.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9300 mit Tapatalk

[BlackFlag]

The USSR banned Christmas as part of it's anti-religious campaign
That's unfair, at least to me.
I personally don't think you should stop anyone believing anything, even in a religious sense, otherwise you turn too authoritarian. Lets keep in mind the USSR also set out to ban homosexuality and went on Jewish purges. The USSR wasn't communist, it was truly horrible when Stalin was in charge. If you inflict on peoples right to religion, you end up with a possible counter-revolution I feel, personally that people should be free to practice religion, but it shouldn't have ANY infliction on how school is taught.
When I was in primary school, (Ages 5-12 in Ireland), all of us had to make our confirmation into the catholic church. We practised hours every day at the age of 12 for the confirmation ceremony. Also, when we did Sexual-Education the teacher wouldn't teach us anything about Abortion, or Condoms. Why? Because the parish control the schools and didn't let her, it's still the same in secondary and primary education.

[sosolo]

malls though will be banned

But surely there will be different distribution points for different types of goods (clothing, electronics, home and kitchen items, etc.)? The idea of going to Costco-like warehouses for everything seems unpleasant.

Of course, I'm a bad communist who loves to shop. ;P


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Sabot Cat]

malls though will be banned

If a coalition of autonomous workers' organizations sought to set up a multitude of room-sized resource distribution centers under the roof of one, large building with multiple levels reached via elevator, would it not be a "mall" in the context of a society that has undergone a proletarian revolution?

[Ele'ill]

nope malls are banned, so are elevators

[Invader Zim]

I voted 'No - But I'd want to change how people celebrate it', by which I mean eradicate all Christmas pop music.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Not to mention malls that play christmas pop songs

[tallguy]

Quite a number of people on here seem to have a bit of thing about banning, censorship and being "off message" in general I have noticed.

[Sea]

Oh well, I really don't feel like it but I guess I better take the time to defend myself.
It's highly ironic that you preach about Marxism being this and that while espousing a vulgar interpretation yourself.


First, the buzzword use of 'reactionary'. The upholding of religion or the degree of irreligion is never a means whereby you can determine reaction. What makes a reactionary is by counter-acting revolutionary struggles. An anti-racist, anti-sexist catholic worker advocating a stateless, classless, moneyless society and acting in accordance with this is in no imaginable way "reactionary".
Secondly, your insistence on Marxism is ironic because a Marxist hypothesis of religion would be that (organised) religion would die out with communism 'automatically'. There would be no need to ban religion because religion would not survive the motions of history and social dynamics of a classless society. You speak of the merits of materialism over idealism while upholding idealism by advocating a ban on religion to have it disappear.
Thirdly, how are you going to enforce this ban on religion? The vast majority of workers is religious, which implies that in your imagined workers' state the workers are not actually in control. Furthermore, in a newly established stateless society what instruments would the minority of atheists have at their disposal to force the majority of religious people to not practice their beliefs?


Incidentally, fasting is not equal to religious prejudice.

Your whole position is poorly thought out, contradictory, and vulgar Marxism.


An anti-racist, anti-sexist catholic worker is not engaging in anti-racist, anti-sexist actions on account of Catholicism. Catholicism teaches sexism, and it does not contradict racism, and it is therefore reactionary. A catholic engaging in progressive actions that stand in contradiction to the teachings of Catholicism, and therefore does not support, and in fact runs contrary to, your thesis that religion (and by this I mean religious institutions) tends neither towards reactionism nor progressivism but is in fact neutral.
Marxism holds that, given communism, religion would die out or would have already died out. That is correct, but this thread is not about whether or not religion would die out naturally in the long term. In the mean time, there also arises a tactical question concerning the counterrevolutionary role of religious institutions. This is the justification for an active fight against religion and religious institutions. You appear to confuse the answers to these two questions. If you want to put in perspective how ridiculous the "wait and see" stance on religion is, find some of my older posts where I made an ass of myself asserting that sexism and racism would just die away on their own under communism and that it would be idealist to fight against them in the meantime. Fortunately, my views have matured since then. These things too would not survive under communism, for the material basis for them would no longer exist. That does not mean that they should not be fought against. Marxism tells us that racism and sexism, like religion, would not be sustainable in a society where their material basis does not exist. This thesis is not contradicted by the other, equally important, Marxist thesis that they should be fought against in the meantime.
You seem to think that a worker's state is just a bulk survey of what workers think. I should not have to explain to you why this is absurd.

And yes, fasting solely for religious reasons is a religious prejudice.



Clearly, communists should celebrate festivus instead.I was waiting for this! :grin:

[Tim Cornelis]

It is, in fact, the task of the new society that has overthrown capitalism to get rid of all its remnants.

Who has determined this to be a task of "the new society that has overthrown capitalism" (i.e. socialism, why so skittish in its use?) is to eliminate "all remnants" of the old society? Based on what analysis? And what does "all remnants" mean? I think it's highly ironic that a Stalinist claims this. Getting rid of "all remnants" means getting rid of mosques, churches, religious holidays, but not commodity production, exchange, class property, wage-labour, the state. That seems a highly selective understanding of "all remnants". Is this why you were skittish in using socialism, because of the contradiction?


The exploiting classes and their supporters do not magically give up their struggle against the proletariat just because the latter are in power, but in fact continue their struggle, as Lenin pointed out.

Whenever you are confronted with the contradictions of your position you begin with the red herrings. Opposition to socialism, i.e. reaction, is not what's being discussed here. It's general religiosity and whether or not policies should be designed, enacted, enforced, to eliminate religion. Evidently, there will be a violent counter-revolution, and small pockets of resistance lingering, but this is not what's being discussed here.


There is also the task of shaping the consciousness of men, of which the struggle against religion plays a major role. The idea that someone with an idealist level of consciousness can build communism has nothing in common with materialism.

This is ironically idealist. What you're saying is that unless materialism is accepted and understood by the working people, communism cannot be build. That is to say, ideas shape reality. Idealism is merely a rhetorical cover of the actual social dynamics, resulting from the material conditions, and cannot affect society in such a way that you give it credit for. Though, of course, this is not surprising given your understanding of the supposed restoration of capitalism in Albania, which you ascribe to revisionism, an idealist hypothesis.

Communism originates from class struggle, not from an understanding of materialism or Marxist analysis.


Of course you have in mind something different, a leap from capitalism to an anarchist/communist(?) society, whereas for us religion will already have withered and likely died by the time that stage of human society is reached.

Not at all. For instance, secularisation of Western Europe from the 1950s or 60s onward was caused by the emergent welfare state which undermined 'the Church'. It was not the "task" of the welfare state to cause secularisation, and neither is the withering away of organised religion a "task" of communism: it is the likely result from the classless social dynamics of communism in a similar way that the welfare state enabled extensive secularisation. The gradual, or for that matter rapid, secularisation in communism happens organicallly, not through policy.

Again, as I said in the previous post, the belief that we need to enact explicit policy to counter religion is idealist, because it implies that if we do not do so religion will continue in its present form into socialism in spite of the radical social transformation society has undergone. A hypothesis from materialist premises, on the contrary, would postulate that (organised) religion will gradually disappear, wither away, or diminish of its own accord due to the social dynamics of communism.

Admittedly, this is a mere hypothesis from observation, but what I have in mind is that religious beliefs will not die out. Organised religion will gradually disappear over multiple generations, but unorganised religion will continue for much longer. What I anticipate is that a generation into communism, the majority of workers are secular but subscribe to organised religion at least nominally, and don't practice it as extensive as they would have under capitalism. Eventually, the majority of people will subscribe to apatheism, deism, and atheism (say, circa 50%) and unorganised religion (say, 30%) and to organised religion (say, 20%). Religiosity is associated with lower intelligence, and those with less cognitive ability will still uphold the belief in a deity, and superstition as well as ghosts -- annoyingly. But I don't regard it as detrimental that someone foolishly believes in ghosts, and it certainly isn't a "task of communism" to "aid" them in stopping them believing in it.


Oh well, I really don't feel like it but I guess I better take the time to defend myself.
An anti-racist, anti-sexist catholic worker is not engaging in anti-racist, anti-sexist actions on account of Catholicism. Catholicism teaches sexism, and it does not contradict racism, and it is therefore reactionary. A catholic engaging in progressive actions that stand in contradiction to the teachings of Catholicism, and therefore does not support, and in fact runs contrary to, your thesis that religion (and by this I mean religious institutions) tends neither towards reactionism nor progressivism but is in fact neutral.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that because a religion neither inherently encourages nor discourages certain social sentiment, that therefore it is reactionary on account of it not inherently discouraging it.

Do you believe the MST, a far-left workers' mass movement that is anti-racist and anti-sexist, to be reactionary because of its inspiration from liberation theology? I very much doubt that.


Marxism holds that, given communism, religion would die out or would have already died out. That is correct, but this thread is not about whether or not religion would die out naturally in the long term. In the mean time, there also arises a tactical question concerning the counterrevolutionary role of religious institutions. This is the justification for an active fight against religion and religious institutions. You appear to confuse the answers to these two questions. If you want to put in perspective how ridiculous the "wait and see" stance on religion is, find some of my older posts where I made an ass of myself asserting that sexism and racism would just die away on their own under communism and that it would be idealist to fight against them in the meantime. Fortunately, my views have matured since then.

Evidently, reactionary religious institutions need to be suppressed. An individual believing in god is not problematic in and of itself. Fasting because of superstition is not reactionary in and of itself.


You seem to think that a worker's state is just a bulk survey of what workers think. I should not have to explain to you why this is absurd.

A workers' state is based on workers' power, workers are religious and will not choose to suppress themselves.


And yes, fasting solely for religious reasons is a religious prejudice.

How?

[Rafiq]

The act of suppressing old ideology is a task of every new founded revolutionary state, that itself is a component of the dissolution of previous modes of thought, it's not just a change in social relations. The proletarian state can actively combat religious institutions, schools, places of worship, remnants of religion in the state and so on. What new social relations birth eventually is the lack of necessity in suppressing religion as privately it would have been done away with. Of course ideology cannot be wholly destroyed without destroying the same relations which sustain it, but it still must militantly be committed. The political struggle against religion is a COMPONENT of the historical materialist conception of ideological change.

[Rafiq]

I am not inclined to believe Marxism has a definite class character. It is not inherently proletarian. Zero level proletarian ideology is trade union consciousness or maybe even anarchism. Marxism is something that will not be substantiated by new social relations, it has to be imposed.

[Remus Bleys]

Let's see what Lenin had to say on religion

At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be “more left” or “more revolutionary” than the Social-Democrats, to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out. Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social practice, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers’ party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering.[2] And in 1877, too, in his Anti-Dühring, while ruthlessly attacking the slightest concessions made by Dühring the philosopher to idealism and religion, Engels no less resolutely condemns Dühring’s pseudo-revolutionary idea that religion should be prohibited in socialist society. To declare such a war on religion, Engels says, is to “out-Bismarck Bismarck”, i. e., to repeat the folly of Bismarck’s struggle against the clericals (the notorious “Struggle for Culture”, Kulturkampf, i.e., the struggle Bismarck waged in the 1870s against the German Catholic party, the “Centre” party, by means of a police persecution of Catholicism). By this struggle Bismarck only stimulated the militant clericalism of the Catholics, and only injured the work of real culture, because he gave prominence to religious divisions rather than political divisions, and diverted the attention of some sections of the working class and of the other democratic elements away from the urgent tasks of the class and revolutionary struggle to the most superficial and false bourgeois anti-clericalism. Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of wanting to repeat Bismarck’s folly in another form, Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion.[3]

[rylasasin]

From this days forward, the people's party of extreme peopleness hereby decrees that christmas is now banned.

We shall instead celebrate chrismarx.

[Glitchcraft]

From this days forward, the people's party of extreme peopleness hereby decrees that christmas is now banned.

We shall instead celebrate chrismarx.
Hilarious! But...
If we are trying to be atheist about it shouldn't it be Marxmas?

It would seem to me that banning Christmas in America at least would just embitter a lot people for no reason. Shouldn't we be working to create a whithering away of Christmas? When scarcity is overcome doesn't that kind of defeat all the worst aspects of Christmas. Bad pop music included.

[Niall]

nah it was a winter solstice festival.

.

Yeah, youre right, I was coming at it from a Christian pont of view.

[reb]

If I was a social-democrat with bayonets who had a disparaging attitude towards the working class, or maybe if I was preaching balkanized maosim, then yes, I would ban Christmas. But in the context of proletarian revolution, the idea is pretty stupid.

[trueleveller]

why can't the state solve even its smallest problems without declaring something illegal and threatening people with violence to enforce its illegality? christmas sucks because the state sponsors capitalism...which turns every celebration into a consumptiongasm for the masses. banning christmas does nothing to free the working class from that paradigm...only abolishing the state and its economic system can do that.

[Ismail]

Who has determined this to be a task of "the new society that has overthrown capitalism" (i.e. socialism, why so skittish in its use?) is to eliminate "all remnants" of the old society? Based on what analysis? And what does "all remnants" mean? I think it's highly ironic that a Stalinist claims this. Getting rid of "all remnants" means getting rid of mosques, churches, religious holidays, but not commodity production, exchange, class property, wage-labour, the state. That seems a highly selective understanding of "all remnants". Is this why you were skittish in using socialism, because of the contradiction?You seem to think that by overcoming and ridding the new society of the birth pangs of the old one means instantly doing such a thing by administrative fiat, which is of course absurd. I'm not "skittish" about anything, I already noted that your conception of the revolution is one which will go straight to communism, without a transitional period.

You also seem to think that such a task as abolishing the state or replacing commodity circulation with products-exchange comes at the same moment religion is defeated, which is, of course, absurd.


Whenever you are confronted with the contradictions of your position you begin with the red herrings. Opposition to socialism, i.e. reaction, is not what's being discussed here. It's general religiosity and whether or not policies should be designed, enacted, enforced, to eliminate religion. Evidently, there will be a violent counter-revolution, and small pockets of resistance lingering, but this is not what's being discussed here.So long as religion exists it should be reasonably obvious that the task of creating a new socialist society will be undermined.


This is ironically idealist. What you're saying is that unless materialism is accepted and understood by the working people, communism cannot be build. That is to say, ideas shape reality.No, the one holding an idealist belief in this conversation is the one who thinks you can arrive at communism however you please, "with Capital in one hand and a Quran in the other" as the Soviet revisionists claimed in regard to petty-bourgeois nationalists such as Ben Bella.


Not at all. For instance, secularisation of Western Europe from the 1950s or 60s onward was caused by the emergent welfare state which undermined 'the Church'. It was not the "task" of the welfare state to cause secularisation, and neither is the withering away of organised religion a "task" of communism: it is the likely result from the classless social dynamics of communism in a similar way that the welfare state enabled extensive secularisation. The gradual, or for that matter rapid, secularisation in communism happens organicallly, not through policy.You are confusing secularization of state and society with the actual disappearance of religion and its institutions. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion capitalism will no longer produce an "opiate," i.e. it will no longer engender that which continues to fuel religion among the masses to begin with.


If I was a social-democrat with bayonets who had a disparaging attitude towards the working class, or maybe if I was preaching balkanized maosim, then yes, I would ban Christmas. But in the context of proletarian revolution, the idea is pretty stupid.There are two ironies in this post.

First, the fact is that the revisionists, who as Hoxha noted fused ever more with social-democracy every day, opposed the struggle against religion waged in Albania. In particular the Yugoslav revisionists, who were particularly supportive of "religious socialism," put out things like these in regard to their own country:

"Now however, we are not involved in any such business [atheism], for a very simple and Marxist reason, because we know that a Church cannot be abolished. Not because priests are strong, but because the Church lives within the people, it exists in their heads, and because the present world situation influences everything that is going on in people's heads. Therefore, to fight the Church as a religious institution is nonsensical. Our criterion should not be whether one is an atheist or not, but whether one supports our socialism or not, and whether one supports peace or not. All the rest is secondary."
(Vjesnik, January 1, 1980.)

On this basis the Yugoslav revisionists, who actually did maintain official ties with avowedly social-democratic parties in Europe, also praised Liberation Theology and other non-Marxist examples of "religious socialism."

Second, the Albanians criticized the right-wing policies of Maoism and noted that it was influenced in part by metaphysical and idealist trends and religions existent in China. Furthermore, as Hoxha wrote in 1973, "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, p. 20.)

As for your attempt to assume that the proletarian revolution immediately seeks to abolish religion, no one has argued that, nor did the USSR and Albania practice that.

[reb]

There is also the task of shaping the consciousness of men, of which the struggle against religion plays a major role. The idea that someone with an idealist level of consciousness can build communism has nothing in common with materialism.

Notice the elitist language here and the almost total lack of class politics. The vanguard party, the father-teacher of the proletariat. Also notice the really rather idealist notion in the second paragraph that you need to have "consciousness" of "communism" to "build communism". More elitist garbage and more evidence of the social democratic nature of stalinists.

[reb]

You seem to think that by overcoming and ridding the new society of the birth pangs of the old one means instantly doing such a thing by administrative fiat, which is of course absurd. I'm not "skittish" about anything, I already noted that your conception of the revolution is one which will go straight to communism, without a transitional period.

You also seem to think that such a task as abolishing the state or replacing commodity circulation with products-exchange comes at the same moment religion is defeated, which is, of course, absurd.

So long as religion exists it should be reasonably obvious that the task of creating a new socialist society will be undermined.

No, the one holding an idealist belief in this conversation is the one who thinks you can arrive at communism however you please, "with Capital in one hand and a Quran in the other" as the Soviet revisionists claimed in regard to petty-bourgeois nationalists such as Ben Bella.

You are confusing secularization of state and society with the actual disappearance of religion and its institutions. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion capitalism will no longer produce an "opiate," i.e. it will no longer engender that which continues to fuel religion among the masses to begin with.

There are two ironies in this post.

First, the fact is that the revisionists, who as Hoxha noted fused ever more with social-democracy every day, opposed the struggle against religion waged in Albania. In particular the Yugoslav revisionists, who were particularly supportive of "religious socialism," put out things like these in regard to their own country:

"Now however, we are not involved in any such business [atheism], for a very simple and Marxist reason, because we know that a Church cannot be abolished. Not because priests are strong, but because the Church lives within the people, it exists in their heads, and because the present world situation influences everything that is going on in people's heads. Therefore, to fight the Church as a religious institution is nonsensical. Our criterion should not be whether one is an atheist or not, but whether one supports our socialism or not, and whether one supports peace or not. All the rest is secondary."
(Vjesnik, January 1, 1980.)

On this basis the Yugoslav revisionists, who actually did maintain official ties with avowedly social-democratic parties in Europe, also praised Liberation Theology and other non-Marxist examples of "religious socialism."

Second, the Albanians criticized the right-wing policies of Maoism and noted that it was influenced in part by metaphysical and idealist trends and religions existent in China. Furthermore, as Hoxha wrote in 1973, "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, p. 20.)

As for your attempt to assume that the proletarian revolution immediately seeks to abolish religion, no one has argued that, nor did the USSR and Albania practice that.

Ismail's reasoning for banning Christmas? Because Hoxha did it. Not only just this reveal the total lack of any sort of marxist approach to anything, it also reveals his own political ideas, one of a party and state that is separate from the proletariat, as is revealed in his other post. Stalinists are going to be stalinists.

[Ismail]

Notice the elitist language here and the almost total lack of class politics. The vanguard party, the father-teacher of the proletariat. Also notice the really rather idealist notion in the second paragraph that you need to have "consciousness" of "communism" to "build communism". More elitist garbage and more evidence of the social democratic nature of stalinists.I like how you can't actually refute a single thing I said. Not to mention that it is the social-democrats who are completely opposed to the concept of the proletarian vanguard.


Ismail's reasoning for banning Christmas? Because Hoxha did it. Not only just this reveal the total lack of any sort of marxist approach to anything, it also reveals his own political ideas, one of a party and state that is separate from the proletariat, as is revealed in his other post. Stalinists are going to be stalinists.Not just Hoxha, but also the Bolsheviks. As I have noted, it is the revisionists and social-democrats who mixed religion and socialism.

"The laws of our country recognise the right of every citizen to profess any religion. That is a matter for the conscience of each individual. That is precisely why we separated the church from the state. But in separating the church from the state and proclaiming freedom of conscience we at the same time preserved the right of every citizen to combat religion, all religion, by argument, by propaganda and agitation. The Party cannot be neutral towards religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda against all religious prejudices because it stands for science, whereas religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is the antithesis of science. Cases such as occur in America, where Darwinists were prosecuted recently, cannot occur here because the Party pursues a policy of defending science in every way...

Have we repressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The only unfortunate thing is that they have not yet been completely eliminated. Anti-religious propaganda is the means by which the elimination of the reactionary clergy will be completely carried through. Cases occur sometimes when certain members of the Party hinder the full development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a very good thing, because there is no room for such 'Communists' in the ranks of our Party."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 10. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. 1954. pp. 138-139.)

[Hexen]

The USSR banned Christmas as part of it's anti-religious campaign (and so Christians ended up Celebrating new years instead). I think this was the standard by which all other communist states followed.

The USSR should have also banned New Years as well and should have replaced the Gregorian Calender with a more secular one which problem solved with that one.

Well actually, All religious based national holidays should be 'banned' (i.e. no longer making them "National Holidays") and therefore making them irrelevant.

[brigadista]

Not if I'm getting time off work - paid

[Sea]

*sigh*
Non-sequitur. It does not follow that because a religion neither inherently encourages nor discourages certain social sentiment, that therefore it is reactionary on account of it not inherently discouraging it. And what of sexism? I mentioned that the Catholic church endorses sexism and does not contradict racism, and that it is therefore reactionary. Curious how you cherry picked racism when I brought up sexism as well, just to accuse me of non-sequitur.

Do you believe the MST, a far-left workers' mass movement that is anti-racist and anti-sexist, to be reactionary because of its inspiration from liberation theology? I very much doubt that.I do not care about "inspiration" or "legacy".

Evidently, reactionary religious institutions need to be suppressed. An individual believing in god is not problematic in and of itself. Fasting because of superstition is not reactionary in and of itself.Metaphysical superstition is certainly reactionary, or at the very least can justify all sorts of reactionary positions. The latter alone is plenty of reason to fight against it.

A workers' state is based on workers' power, workers are religious and will not choose to suppress themselves.The majority of the workers are incorrect on the subject of religion. You seem to suggest that the workers' state be democratic. This would lower the accuracy of its positions to the accuracy of the positions held by most workers. Workers under capitalism are kept far too backwards for this to be viable. However, in the interest of not starting an off-topic shitstorm in this thread, you can make another thread if you wanna talk about vanguardism.

How?You even admitted it yourself! Go re-read your own post.

[Tim Cornelis]

You seem to think that by overcoming and ridding the new society of the birth pangs of the old one means instantly doing such a thing by administrative fiat, which is of course absurd. I'm not "skittish" about anything, I already noted that your conception of the revolution is one which will go straight to communism, without a transitional period.

A transitional period called the dictatorship of the proletariat.


You also seem to think that such a task as abolishing the state or replacing commodity circulation with products-exchange comes at the same moment religion is defeated, which is, of course, absurd.

Indeed, bothering religion with persecution takes priority over ridding society of capitalist relations of production.


So long as religion exists it should be reasonably obvious that the task of creating a new socialist society will be undermined.

Not it isn't.


No, the one holding an idealist belief in this conversation is the one who thinks you can arrive at communism however you please, "with Capital in one hand and a Quran in the other" as the Soviet revisionists claimed in regard to petty-bourgeois nationalists such as Ben Bella.

You are mistaken, you hold idealist beliefs and you AGAIN throw a red herring around.


You are confusing secularization of state and society with the actual disappearance of religion and its institutions. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion capitalism will no longer produce an "opiate," i.e. it will no longer engender that which continues to fuel religion among the masses to begin with.

It was an analogy.


There are two ironies in this post.

First, the fact is that the revisionists, who as Hoxha noted fused ever more with social-democracy every day, opposed the struggle against religion waged in Albania. In particular the Yugoslav revisionists, who were particularly supportive of "religious socialism," put out things like these in regard to their own country:

"Now however, we are not involved in any such business [atheism], for a very simple and Marxist reason, because we know that a Church cannot be abolished. Not because priests are strong, but because the Church lives within the people, it exists in their heads, and because the present world situation influences everything that is going on in people's heads. Therefore, to fight the Church as a religious institution is nonsensical. Our criterion should not be whether one is an atheist or not, but whether one supports our socialism or not, and whether one supports peace or not. All the rest is secondary."
(Vjesnik, January 1, 1980.)

On this basis the Yugoslav revisionists, who actually did maintain official ties with avowedly social-democratic parties in Europe, also praised Liberation Theology and other non-Marxist examples of "religious socialism."

Second, the Albanians criticized the right-wing policies of Maoism and noted that it was influenced in part by metaphysical and idealist trends and religions existent in China. Furthermore, as Hoxha wrote in 1973, "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, p. 20.)

As for your attempt to assume that the proletarian revolution immediately seeks to abolish religion, no one has argued that, nor did the USSR and Albania practice that.

Red herring. Of course you do not address the arguments I advanced, because you can't, because your ideology is contradictory and wrong. It seems you are incapable of critical thinking after your immersion in self-delusion of the obscurity of Hoxhaism. It's a waste of time to try and discuss with you.


*sigh*And what of sexism? I mentioned that the Catholic church endorses sexism and does not contradict racism, and that it is therefore reactionary. Curious how you cherry picked racism when I brought up sexism as well, just to accuse me of non-sequitur.

A non-sequitur and cherry picking are two different things. The 'Catholic church' is formally bound by the Vatican, but informally it's heterogeneous. There are Catholic priests openly declaring support of gay marriage or even abortion, and there are Catholic believers that oppose sexism, like the MST.


I do not care about "inspiration" or "legacy".

That's not my question, or should I interpet this as an affirmative answer? You consider the MST to be reactionary for its roots in liberation theology.


Metaphysical superstition is certainly reactionary,

Non-sequitur. Metaphysical superstition does not inherently pertain to social sentiment, such as the support for social revolution.


or at the very least can justify all sorts of reactionary positions.

It can justify all sorts of reactionary positions, and so can socialism. It also cannot justify all sorts of reactionary positions. It can also be supportive of revolutionism. There's no inherent feature in metaphysical superstition that leads to reactionary sentiment.


The latter alone is plenty of reason to fight against it.

No it's not.


The majority of the workers are incorrect on the subject of religion. You seem to suggest that the workers' state be democratic.

If by democratic it is meant that workers excercise control over the state through organs of workers' power then yes. Anything short of this would not be a workers' state.


This would lower the accuracy of its positions to the accuracy of the positions held by most workers.

Non-sequitur. No one argues that when a majority says something that therefore it's accurate, and this is neither the implication of supporting democracy.


Workers under capitalism are kept far too backwards for this to be viable.

Drop all pretensions of Marxism and adopt Blanquism.


However, in the interest of not starting an off-topic shitstorm in this thread, you can make another thread if you wanna talk about vanguardism.

I'm all for vanguardism, what you support is substitutionism, however, which will lead to the imposing of your, or the 'vanguardist elite', will on the workers, resentment by the workers, social conflict between the two, and the recreation and reproducing of class dynamics, therefore class society and capitalism.

What you propose is that, in some countries, for instance Brazil, less than 1% of the population (atheistic socialists with a thorough understanding of Marxism-Leninism) rules everyone else (yet somehow it being a workers' state despite leaving workers disempowered and subject to an elite). Stating this should be sufficient refutation of your point.


You even admitted it yourself! Go re-read your own post.

I don't see how. Prejudice, as I understand, it, is judging a person or a group of people based on preconceived notions. Fasting for religious reasons and prejudice are completely different things.

[Ismail]

Indeed, bothering religion with persecution takes priority over ridding society of capitalist relations of production.The struggle against religion in Albania reached its most noteworthy stage 20 years after the liberation of the country. Before that stage you had such events as the confiscation of property held by wartime collaborators, land reform in the countryside, socializing the means of production, laying the material-technical basis for socialism, carrying out collectivization, and, at the same time the aforementioned stage in the anti-religious struggle was reached, getting rid of petty artisan production in towns among various other measures. Then, of course, you had the construction of socialism and its construction in the main by the early 70s.


Of course you do not address the arguments I advanced,You aren't actually refuting mine.

For all your "radical" posturing you are not only trying to justify the continuation of reactionary and idealist trends under a society led by the working-class, but even preaching the mixing of religion with socialism. You take positions identical to the social-democrats and revisionists on this subject, and that's something you cannot sidestep.

Hoxha noted that "the imperialists and the revisionists apply a thousand and one epithets to our Party and our internal and foreign policy: 'Stalinist, iron curtain, cold war, conservative, destroyers of religion and venerable traditions, etc.' .... they want to smash the Marxist-Leninist stand of our Party which is the decisive factor in all these achievements of our people... The Party of Labour of Albania did not betray, it stood its ground fearlessly, unyielding, it upholds the principles of and defends socialism, its own country, and revolution. Neither the imperialists nor the revisionist traitors could have expected or conceived this." (Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 789-790.)

[Remus Bleys]

You take positions identical to the social-democrats and revisionists on this subject, and that's something you cannot sidestep.How come all your arguments are association fallacies?
I mean can you make an argument without going "soviet revisionists"!!! No one takes that seriously.

[Ismail]

How come all your arguments are association fallacies?
I mean can you make an argument without going "soviet revisionists"!!! No one takes that seriously.Because it just so happens that revisionists and ultra-leftists seem to take common lines in the struggle against the Marxist-Leninist ideology, from issues like religion to the subject of class struggle under socialism. I do not think this is coincidental.

When I pointed out that it was the Soviet revisionists who spoke of marching towards socialism with a Quran (or Bible) in one hand, and that the Yugoslav revisionists praised "religious socialism" and opposed the struggle against religion, there is no response to these facts on the part of certain ultra-leftists in this thread.

[Remus Bleys]

Because it just so happens that revisionists and ultra-leftists seem to take common lines in the struggle against the Marxist-Leninist ideology, from issues like religion to the subject of class struggle under socialism. I do not think this is coincidental.
well im not ultraleftist and tim doesn't really give me that vibe. so not sure who you are arguing for.
And these arguments look similar superficially when in context and content they stem from radically different traditions and have very different implications and surrounding theory. Although I don't know why I am talking to someone who is wasting his entire life larping the cold war.

[Ismail]

And these arguments look similar superficially when in context and content they stem from radically different traditions and have very different implications and surrounding theory. Although I don't know why I am talking to someone who is wasting his entire life larping the cold war.Less than three months ago you were calling yourself a Titoist, I don't think the similarities are superficial.

[Prometeo liberado]

The USSR banned Christmas Banned before or after this:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4673389485228248&w=247&h=177&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7 http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4621355983702400&w=261&h=186&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4584118604466460&w=269&h=188&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7
You wanna ban something? Ban those stupid puffy paint sweaters and the guy in the office who thinks he's funny wearing a santa hat.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Ban Christmas? What am I, some ridiculous villain from some third-rate Holiday special?

Hell no I don't want to ban Christmas! I LIKE Christmas!

Granted, I do hate most of the music, and I hate how it seems to come earlier and earlier each year......and frankly, I'm starting to wonder if the Walton family has CCTVs installed in every Wal-Mart in America so they can watch the carnage that inevitably follows Black Friday....

But I love the presents, and the decorations, and the feelings of happiness and good cheer that fill the air....

Besides, banning Christmas just sounds petty. "Someone enjoys something I don't? REVISIONIST SCUM MUST DIE!!"

[Remus Bleys]

Less than three months ago you were calling yourself a Titoist, I don't think the similarities are superficial.I don't think I actually called myself a titoist. Also a lot changes in "less than three months"
I mean you thought Hoxha was a nationalist, as did Stalin. So logically, if using your bullshit scapegoat arguments, you still think Hoxha was a nationalist, because ideology never clarifies itself.

[Ismail]

Also a lot changes in "less than three months"No it doesn't except for leftist newbies that want to impress others.

And you did, in fact, refer to yourself as a "Titoist-Chavista."


I mean you thought Hoxha was a nationalist,Yes, six years ago, because every bourgeois source I had access to at the time (and I only owned a single book on Albania) had said as such. I still upheld his line as basically correct at the time.


as did Stalin.Yes, because at that time he knew nothing of the situation in Albania and was reliant on the Titoites for information.


So logically, if using your bullshit scapegoat arguments, you still think Hoxha was a nationalist, because ideology never clarifies itself.I have, in fact, refuted claims that Hoxha was a "nationalist" numerous times over the past five years.

[Remus Bleys]

No it doesn't except for leftist newbies that want to impress others.
Ah. When I call you out on association fallacy you ad hominem?

And you did, in fact, refer to yourself as a "Titoist-Chavista."HEY LOOK IM ISMAIL IM TOO STUPID TO GET A JOKE!
Im pretty sure in fact that I have told you it was a joke numerous times.

Yes, six years ago, because every bourgeois source I had access to at the time (and I only owned a single book on Albania) had said as such. I still upheld his line as basically correct at the time.so you upheld a nationalist for a time then.

Yes, because at that time he knew nothing of the situation in Albania and was reliant on the Titoites for information.make that two of us then i guess.

I have, in fact, refuted claims that Hoxha was a "nationalist" numerous times over the past five years.Good for you i guess. I mean, holy fuck, you literally shitted five years of your life away for some irrelevant head of state whos entire ideology was geopolitics.

[Ismail]

Ah. When I call you out on association fallacy you ad hominem?I was still a Marxist-Leninist six years ago, I just upheld Hoxha and whatnot "with reservations," as it were. My point here is that you changed from Titoism (which defended "religious socialism") to your own peculiar brand of ultra-leftism that, surprise surprise, still defends "religious socialism." You didn't make much of a leap.


HEY LOOK IM ISMAIL IM TOO STUPID TO GET A JOKE!
Im pretty sure in fact that I have told you it was a joke numerous times.It wasn't a joke, you were defending the likes of Tito and Chávez back then.


so you upheld a nationalist for a time then.I thought he adopted "nationalist" positions later on, when he denounced Mao and "isolated" Albania from the world. Again, this was all based on the limited information I had at my disposal. I don't think anyone can say I'm ignorant of the Hoxha period anymore.


Good for you i guess. I mean, holy fuck, you literally shitted five years of your life away for some irrelevant head of state whos entire ideology was geopolitics.Well yeah, he stood out from other world leaders by actually adhering to Marxism-Leninism and refusing to play the game of the superpowers or engage in demagogic spectacles of being "non-aligned," practicing a "specific road to socialism," etc. At a time when revisionism was not just a trend within the workers' movement, but was in power in various countries, struggling against its activities in the geopolitical realm was indeed a worthy task for any revolutionary. He acted in a manner very much unlike your former heroes Tito and Chávez.

[Remus Bleys]

I was still a Marxist-Leninist six years ago, I just upheld Hoxha and whatnot "with reservations," as it were. My point here is that you changed from Titoism (which defended "religious socialism") to your own peculiar brand of ultra-leftism that, surprise surprise, defends "religious socialism."
"Hey Remus you don't think that religious people should be allowed to be religious, so you must logically feel that religion should be incorporated into the vanguard" okay ismail. whatever. and again, not really ultraleftist.
And no I wasn't titoist.

It wasn't a joke, you were defending the likes of Tito and Chávez back then.Nah I was defending an ideology that had been projected onto them, that ideology was still objectively wrong of course, but was not titoism nor chavismo.
I can assure you that "titoist-chavista" was a joke.


I thought he adopted "nationalist" positions later on, when he denounced Mao and "isolated" Albania from the world.Okay. So what changed? Did he just not leave albania, for what was it, 15 years? Did he not practice the religion of "albanianism"? Did he not adopt these same positions that you previously thought he had - or did he adopt them then handwave some bs about socialist patriotism and so it couldn't have been nationalist?


Well yeah, he stood out from other world leaders by actually adhering to Marxism-Leninism
"he stood out from the bourgeois leaders by actually following the specific bourgeois ideology of stalin"

and refusing to play the game of the superpowers or engage in demagogic spectacles of being "non-aligned," practicing a "specific road to socialism," etc.
more accusations of titoism. The sad thing is that I think you think you are being sly or subtle.

At a time when revisionism was not just a trend within the workers' movement, but was in power in various countries, struggling against its activities in the geopolitical realm was indeed a worthy task for any revolutionary.
revisionism of what? Revisionism? Stalinism is inherently "revisionist"
but if you believe it to be actually a change in state ideology that changed the content of a regime and not class struggles leading to a change in ideology then all hope is lost.
And yet again, the point of that phrase went right over your head.

He acted in a manner very much unlike your former heroes Tito and Chávez. holy fuck dude. Is there something wrong with you?

[Ismail]

Okay. So what changed? Did he just not leave albania, for what was it, 15 years?I was unaware not going on foreign visits abroad was in itself nationalist. Lenin and Stalin didn't leave Soviet territory either. Nationalists like Tito, Ceaușescu, Kim and what have you visited all sorts of countries. What's your point?

Also for the record Hoxha's visit to Moscow in November 1960 was the last time he left the country. He died in 1985, so 25 years.


Did he not practice the religion of "albanianism"?No, he didn't. "Albanianism" was put forward by Pashko Vasa in one of his most notable poems. It was against organized religion. In it he called for Albanians not to regard themselves as "Turks" or "Greeks" as the Ottoman Empire and Greek Patriarchate desired, but to think of themselves as Albanians. Vasa noted that both priest and hodja (Muslim religious leader) alike were fooling the people into serving reactionary and anti-national causes, i.e. the continued Turkish domination of Albania or of Greek irredentism in the south. The Vatican and Greek Patriarchate continued to try and use religion in Albania for their own purposes, plus the clergy claimed that it was impossible to uphold Albanian culture and oppose religion, and attempted to make them synonymous. The slogan was thus used during the anti-religious campaign for this reason. It had no influence on the line of the Party outside of this usage.


but if you believe it to be actually a change in state ideology that changed the content of a regime and not class struggles leading to a change in ideology then all hope is lost.Class struggle existed in the USSR, it could not have been otherwise. Already in Stalin's last years there was the Leningrad Affair (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1980/restoration-capitalism-soviet-union/appendix-3.htm) among other things that made this clear. The Soviet revisionists usurped state power following his death and obviously overthrew the proletarian line of the CPSU. Their revisionist proclamations followed from their control over state power.

[Entfremdung]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbK1mrcIIAAkkIy.png:large

[Durruti's friend]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbK1mrcIIAAkkIy.png:large

This is a New Year's postcard, as are all Soviet postcards or stamps or whatever with Santa Claus on it. Western style Christmas customs, such as giving presents or the character of Santa Claus, were used on New Year's Eve in the Eastern Bloc as Christmas wasn't officially celebrated. The government's attitude towards individual celebration of Christmas (and other religious feasts) differed from state to state - it wasn't a problem in, say, Yugoslavia but was, as already said, persecuted in Albania.

[Tim Cornelis]

The struggle against religion in Albania reached its most noteworthy stage 20 years after the liberation of the country. Before that stage you had such events as the confiscation of property held by wartime collaborators, land reform in the countryside, socializing the means of production, laying the material-technical basis for socialism, carrying out collectivization, and, at the same time the aforementioned stage in the anti-religious struggle was reached, getting rid of petty artisan production in towns among various other measures. Then, of course, you had the construction of socialism and its construction in the main by the early 70s.

None of which I regard as socialist measures. The only thing collectivist about Albania was the collective illusion of socialism.


You aren't actually refuting mine.

For all your "radical" posturing you are not only trying to justify the continuation of reactionary and idealist trends under a society led by the working-class, but even preaching the mixing of religion with socialism. You take positions identical to the social-democrats and revisionists on this subject, and that's something you cannot sidestep.

Again and again, this is idealist in itself. What you propose is that religion will continue to exist in socialism as it does today in capitalism if it is not actively discouraged through state policy, this is an idealist proposition. What I propose is that the conditions of communist society will result in the diminishing of organised religion of its own accord.

Nor have I advocated the mixing of socialism and religion. Personally, I think religion is ridiculous, but not inherently reactionary. Hence, if religious workers use their religion as inspiration for their socialism, I do not object (as per the MST).

So address this:

Do you believe that religion, if left to its own devices, free from government interference, will continue to exist in socialism as it does today under capitalism?

[Comrade #138672]

Class struggle existed in the USSR, it could not have been otherwise. Already in Stalin's last years there was the Leningrad Affair (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1980/restoration-capitalism-soviet-union/appendix-3.htm) among other things that made this clear. The Soviet revisionists usurped state power following his death and obviously overthrew the proletarian line of the CPSU. Their revisionist proclamations followed from their control over state power.So the proletariat was already weak during Stalin's rule, if the proletariat could not do much more than to rely on Stalin to defend the revolution for them.

[Sinister Intents]

Happy Yule to those that want to ban it. :)

[Cutondime]

No I wouldn't ban Christmas. How would you even enforce this? You can't regulate what people choose to celebrate.

[Ismail]

So the proletariat was already weak during Stalin's rule, if the proletariat could not do much more than to rely on Stalin to defend the revolution for them.Obviously, what with the great material backwardneses the Soviets inherited, the devastation caused by WWII, etc. In one of Stalin's last speeches (in Russian, since it became known only after 1991) he criticized the poor quality of party propaganda and of knowledge about Marxism.


Again and again, this is idealist in itself. What you propose is that religion will continue to exist in socialism as it does today in capitalism if it is not actively discouraged through state policy, this is an idealist proposition. What I propose is that the conditions of communist society will result in the diminishing of organised religion of its own accord.This is the "peaceful dying out" of class struggle criticized by Stalin and revived by the revisionists.

The fact that you don't consider religion an inherent impediment to communism makes it clear that it is you who holds idealist opinions.


Do you believe that religion, if left to its own devices, free from government interference, will continue to exist in socialism as it does today under capitalism?Of course, why wouldn't it when capitalism exists side-by-side against the states which have constructed socialism and when the consciousness of the workers (and peasants, if they exist) has to be raised still higher to meet the new stages of development? The dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction allows for reactionary and backwards social customs to be overcome, it doesn't automatically bring this about without conscious effort.

Anyway, here are excerpts of Hoxha speaking on religion in Albania, so you can get some understanding of why it was fought against:

"Religion has tried to clothe everything, every event in a man's life, in its mystic and reactionary cloak. These religious practices have been introduced not only into the life of the faithful, but even into the life of atheists who sometimes put them into practice unconsciously. That is why, without fighting all these religious practices and all the dogmas on which they are founded, old and backward customs and traditions cannot be extirpated and new norms and new socialist relations cannot be fully established in our society....

[The struggle against religion] is not a sporadic thing that came by itself. It is the result of great social economic transformations which have been carried out in our country's life, of the correct line of the Party to separate church from state and school from religion, the result of the work of many years that has been accomplished by the Party, state, Democratic Front and all the social organizations to spread education and culture and to educate the masses in the spirit of atheism. In all its attitude towards religion, the Party has stuck to the Marxist-Leninist principle that religious world outlook and communist world outlook are opposed to each other, are irreconcilable and at variance with each other, because they express and uphold the interests of different antagonistic classes. It has always subordinated the fight against religious ideology to the struggle to free the workers from social oppression and economic exploitation. In order to attain this objective, it has not allowed the employment of administrative measures, but has set the method of persuading and educating the masses at the base of atheistic work.

The successes that have been achieved in the struggle against the influence of religion and its bases are bound up also with the fact that our people have never been and are not so fanatical and attached to religion, for it has always opposed their aspirations and liberation struggle. All the religious sects that exist in our country have been brought into Albania by foreign invaders and have served them and the ruling and exploiting classes of the country. Under the garb of religion, of God and his prophets, there lay hidden the brutal law of external invaders and their internal lackeys....

It is necessary to combat the erroneous concept that religion is only the church, the mosque, the priest, the hodja, the icons, etc., and that, once these disappear religion and its influence over the people would automatically disappear, too. We must be realistic; our struggle against old customs, traditions, norms, against religious conceptions, age-long rooted in the life and conscience of the people, has not ended. This is a long, complicated and difficult struggle. Therefore, our educational and convincing work, our atheist propaganda should firmly continue to consolidate the victories already achieved....

The elimination and the limitation of various old festivities, ceremonies and customs require that they be necessarily replaced by new ones. By disowning the old, we should necessarily affirm the new, otherwise the old resuscitates and renews itself. We should not allow any gaps to be created in the life of the people."
(Hoxha, Enver. Report on the Role and Tasks of the Democratic Front for the Complete Triumph of Socialism in Albania. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1974. pp. 82-87.)

[Sea]

I really don't feel like responding to this drivel, but this one is so hilarious I just can't helpt it:
I'm all for vanguardism, what you support is substitutionism, however, which will lead to the imposing of your, or the 'vanguardist elite', will on the workers, resentment by the workers, social conflict between the two, and the recreation and reproducing of class dynamics, therefore class society and capitalism.Class societies can re-arise (ignoring for the sake of argument your implication that the DOTP would be anything other than a class society already) only on an economical basis. Capitalism doesn't recreate itself just because the party's official line is that bread should be eaten with the butter side down, while the majority of the workers still want to eat their bread with the butter side up. :laugh:

edit: Is it just me or is it the Hip New Thing™ to accuse Ismail of idealism? It seems to be catching on.

[Oulian]

Banned before or after this:

You wanna ban something? Ban those stupid puffy paint sweaters and the guy in the office who thinks he's funny wearing a santa hat.

Well if you could speak Russian you would be able to read on these beautiful pictures that they say "Happy New Year" and not "Merry Christmas" :rolleyes:
USSR didn't celebrate Christmas and even nowadays in most ex-soviet countries the biggest celebration is the new year, not Christmas. By the way, Russia celebrates Christmas the 7th January not the 24th/25th December.
The Patriarchate was restablished in 1918 after the fall of tsarism and in 1943, too. People that read the Bible under the USSR were very rare because it was not accessible. I know that for many people the first time they heard about Pontius Pilate was when they read The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov. Basic informations about religions could be found in books called something like "The Atheist".

[Tim Cornelis]

Obviously, what with the great material backwardneses the Soviets inherited, the devastation caused by WWII, etc. In one of Stalin's last speeches (in Russian, since it became known only after 1991) he criticized the poor quality of party propaganda and of knowledge about Marxism.

[QUOTE=Ismail;2699372]This is the "peaceful dying out" of class struggle criticized by Stalin and revived by the revisionists.

First, religion is different from class struggle. Second, class struggle in the USSR to Stalin meant inter-capitalist factionalism.


The fact that you don't consider religion an inherent impediment to communism makes it clear that it is you who holds idealist opinions.

How so? I don't regard ideology, as well as religion, as responsible for the motion of human development, hence I'm an idealist...? By extension of your logic, we need to await for atheism to become accepted by the majority of workers before we can make socialist revolution, unless you propose, like Sea, that less than one percent of the population of Brazil rules over the 99%.


Of course, why wouldn't it when capitalism exists side-by-side against the states which have constructed socialism and when the consciousness of the workers (and peasants, if they exist) has to be raised still higher to meet the new stages of development? The dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction allows for reactionary and backwards social customs to be overcome, it doesn't automatically bring this about without conscious effort.

I think it does actually. Again, the comparison with secularisation in post-World War II Western Europe was not effected by conscious effort or some imposed policy by a ruling minority, but came about organically through welfare measures weakening the position of the Church and thereby its influence on society. It was an organic development free of individual will. Similarly, communism will effect 'secularisation' (the diminishing influence of organised religion) in a similar manner, through community, solidarity, mutual aid all inherent in communism will the social function of organised religion disappear inevitably. Once the social function of organised religion disappears, so gradually will organised religion of its own accord. Metaphysical superstition will only exist insofar some cannot cognitively comprehend how the complexity of life and the universe could come about without a 'magic/divine intervention' cop out.


I really don't feel like responding to this drivel, but this one is so hilarious I just can't helpt it:

Call it drivel when you can't refute my arguments. Evidently, being confronted with your bourgeois-idealist paradigm is making you uncomfortable so you nit pick the only argument you think you can refute, unfortunately you even fail at that.


Class societies can re-arise (ignoring for the sake of argument your implication that the DOTP would be anything other than a class society already) only on an economical basis. Capitalism doesn't recreate itself just because the party's official line is that bread should be eaten with the butter side down, while the majority of the workers still want to eat their bread with the butter side up. :laugh:

Evidently, you failed to understand my point. I didn't say class society re-arose, as clearly neither Russia nor the Soviet Union had ever stopped being a class society. What I argued is that the Bolshevik Party recreated and reproduced class dynamics and class society by assuming control over economic activity and the means of production while imposing its decisions from above while leaving the working class disempowered and dispossessed. By employing wage-labour, producing commodities, and extracting surplus value, the Bolshevik party-state had effectively become the capitalist of society, as Marx said: "The social capital is equal to the sum of the individual capitals (including the joint-stock capital or state capital, in so far as governments employ productive wage-labour in mines, railways, etc. and function as industrial capitalists." (source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch03.htm)). Capitalism reproduces itself all the time at any time, and class dynamics can be recreated in a different form, feudal to capitalist, liberal capitalist to fascist, secular to Islamist. This is what I meant, class dynamics were reproduced, class society was recreated by Bolshevik class rule over the proletariat.


edit: Is it just me or is it the Hip New Thing™ to accuse Ismail of idealism? It seems to be catching on.

And rightly so. Anti-revisionism is an idealist concept.

[Ismail]

First, religion is different from class struggle.And yet is inextricably bound up with it.


Second, class struggle in the USSR to Stalin meant inter-capitalist factionalism.In Stalin's time most examples of attempts to restore capitalism were expressed through factionalism by the Trotskyists and Bukharinists, yes.


How so? I don't regard ideology, as well as religion, as responsible for the motion of human development, hence I'm an idealist...? By extension of your logic, we need to await for atheism to become accepted by the majority of workers before we can make socialist revolution, unless you propose, like Sea, that less than one percent of the population of Brazil rules over the 99%.The October Revolution occurred under the leadership of the atheistic Bolsheviks, so your argument falls flat. You don't have to "await" anything. The fact you rate religion (or lack thereof) as more important than classes, to the extent you're talking about "less than 1% of atheists ruling over 99% of the religious," is a clear example of your idealistic way of thinking.


Again, the comparison with secularisation in post-World War II Western Europe was not effected by conscious effort or some imposed policy by a ruling minority, but came about organically through welfare measures weakening the position of the Church and thereby its influence on society. It was an organic development free of individual will.The fact that the Church lost a fair bit of its political power in Western Europe does not mean that religion is really capable of disappearing under capitalism. Capitalist society (including its anti-social tendencies, poverty, etc.) and the bourgeoisie promote the continued existence of religion and its role in propping up the bourgeois state and ideology.

[Tim Cornelis]

And yet is inextricably bound up with it.

I don't think so. Again, metaphysical superstition does not inherently lead to any social sentiment.


In Stalin's time most examples of attempts to restore capitalism were expressed through factionalism by the Trotskyists and Bukharinists, yes.

Again, the Soviet Union was already capitalist, and "class struggle" in the USSR was inter-capitalist factionalism.


The October Revolution occurred under the leadership of the atheistic Bolsheviks, so your argument falls flat.

No, it reinforces my argument. A revolution by a minority lead to class rule by a minority.


You don't have to "await" anything. The fact you rate religion (or lack thereof) as more important than classes,

What?! Are you talking about. Jesus Christ... I never even suggested so much as anything resembling what you just pulled out of your arse.


to the extent you're talking about "less than 1% of atheists ruling over 99% of the religious," is a clear example of your idealistic way of thinking.

That makes no sense.


The fact that the Church lost a fair bit of its political power in Western Europe does not mean that religion is really capable of disappearing under capitalism.

I never suggested this.


Capitalist society (including its anti-social tendencies, poverty, etc.) and the bourgeoisie promote the continued existence of religion and its role in propping up the bourgeois state and ideology.

In other words, communism rids society of poverty and anti-social tendencies and therefore stops promoting religion, and therefore it will wither away of its own accord... So there's no need for a consciously orchestrated policy to attack religion. Right?

[LeftistEnthusiast]

I'd certainly ban Christmas. It represents everything I hate: celebrating capitalism, the hierarchy and authority of Santa Clause, and saturating ourselves in more than what we need.

[GerrardWinstanley]

One year wouldn't hurt.

[Sea]

Evidently, you failed to understand my point. I didn't say class society re-arose, as clearly neither Russia nor the Soviet Union had ever stopped being a class society. What I argued is that the Bolshevik Party recreated and reproduced class dynamics and class society by assuming control over economic activity and the means of production while imposing its decisions from above while leaving the working class disempowered and dispossessed. By employing wage-labour, producing commodities, and extracting surplus value, the Bolshevik party-state had effectively become the capitalist of society, as Marx said: "The social capital is equal to the sum of the individual capitals (including the joint-stock capital or state capital, in so far as governments employ productive wage-labour in mines, railways, etc. and function as industrial capitalists." (source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch03.htm)). Capitalism reproduces itself all the time at any time, and class dynamics can be recreated in a different form, feudal to capitalist, liberal capitalist to fascist, secular to Islamist. This is what I meant, class dynamics were reproduced, class society was recreated by Bolshevik class rule over the proletariat.Why are you dragging the Bolsheviks into this? Why are you dragging nationalization into this? None of these things necessarily relate to my points about a worker's state cracking down on religious expression. Nice try, but your "refutations" aren't if they don't relate to the topic at hand.
And rightly so. Anti-revisionism is an idealist concept.Sez you.

Ooh, almost fogot. I wanna change my official opinion. I don't want to ban Christmas, I just want to have it restricted. Is there a pole option for this? Why isn't there a poll option for this? There should be one. After the revolution we can set up a big OI section in Siberia, or maybe Texas or something, and people can celebrate Christmas there. I think that's the more peaceful option. Also, Tim, try to not be so snappy at me. Where's your Christmas cheer?

BTW capitalism under liberalism, fascism, Islamism, all have the same class dynamics. None of those things change the class dynamics of capitalism, and it's idealist (literally) to suggest they do.

And so you don't accuse me of cherry picking, you can pick the arguments of yours that you want me to refute most. That's my Christmas present to you. Even just over the course of the few posts we exchanged, 1 short post of mine turned into like 5 separately quoted segments. I don't wanna reply to all of them if they just keep multiplying. That's why I picked that 1, but if you wanna diagnose me with a complex that's your call. That, and that I'm not in a "oh boy, someone's wrong on the other side of the internet, better go get 'em" mood much any more, which is why I've been posting less than I usually do. But don't worry, I'll still give you plenty of opportunities to oogle my avatar. :)

[hatzel]

I'd certainly ban Christmas. It represents everything I hate: celebrating capitalism, the hierarchy and authority of Santa Clause, and saturating ourselves in more than what we need.

You see the first bit makes me think that you're a serious - although pretty annoying and misguided, imho - feel-good leftist, and the last bit makes me think you're a serious - although pretty annoying and misguided, imho - feel-good leftist, but the middle bit just makes me think that you've got to be kidding, right? I mean, this is surely a sarcastic comment poking fun at the kinds of people who say stuff like this, or are you actually that annoying and misguided a feel-good leftist??? :unsure:

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm not specifically anti-Christmas, but as a Communist I am anti-human so by extension I'm anti-Christmas.

[Ismail]

I don't think so. Again, metaphysical superstition does not inherently lead to any social sentiment.Belief in unquestionable dogma, in figures to interpret that dogma, in religious codes which sanction all sorts of reactionary social norms...


That makes no sense.And yet you were the one making the claim that "1%" would be ruling over the "99%" just because the former happen to be atheists.


In other words, communism rids society of poverty and anti-social tendencies and therefore stops promoting religion, and therefore it will wither away of its own accord... So there's no need for a consciously orchestrated policy to attack religion. Right?Under communism religion will have been defeated as an organized force beforehand and the ranks of the religious will be practically nil. There is a need, however, for a conscious treatment of the problem of religion under socialism, seeing as how the physical and ideological remnants of the exploiting classes will exist during this transitional period, and will be promoted at every opportunity by the capitalist states.

You seem to be under the impression that the October Revolution and the Albanian National Liberation War did not undercut much of the basis of the clergy and religious ideology. You're portraying what occurred in those countries as nothing more than administrative measures initiated from above, which wasn't the case.

[Per Levy]

Belief in unquestionable dogma, in figures to interpret that dogma, in religious codes which sanction all sorts of reactionary social norms...

sounds very much like anti-revisionist marxist-leninism as it is preached by hoxhas prophet ismail.

as for the op, im just a lowly little worker and will never be in the position to ban anything. and im the last person to tell workers that chrismas needs to be banned. stuff like this will be decided during and after the revolution. and if christmas will exist then or not is really not importent.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why are you dragging the Bolsheviks into this? Why are you dragging nationalization into this? None of these things necessarily relate to my points about a worker's state cracking down on religious expression. Nice try, but your "refutations" aren't if they don't relate to the topic at hand.

Yes they do actually. Of course, you pretend that you do not comprehend my point to evade it, but you know full well that a workers' state cracking down on religious expression would entail, in countries like Brazil, a rule of less than 1% of the population over 99%. In other words, your "workers' state" wouldn't be a workers' state and would inevitably reproduce and recreate class society and capitalism. I explained this clearly and I don't think you're too stupid to understand it, so I assume you're pretending to not get it so you don't have to address or confront your own contradictory stance on this.


Sez you.

Of course it is. If you identify revisionism as the cause for market-oriented reforms, and in fact the restoration of an entire mode of production, then you identify ideology and ideas as the cause for social development (or regress for that matter). It's contrary to materialism. If you think that the only thing that had to change was the ideas of the ruling elite for a mode of production to have been sustained, then it's idealism.


BTW capitalism under liberalism, fascism, Islamism, all have the same class dynamics. None of those things change the class dynamics of capitalism, and it's idealist (literally) to suggest they do.

You haven't put much thought in this have you? The rise of fascism over liberal capitalism, for instance, has materialist underpinnings and changes class society in an effort to stabilise capital. You have to be delusional to think fascism and liberal capitalism function identically. Yes, both are capitalist class society, but the role of fascism in restructuring the management of capital is clearly different from that of liberal democracy. Are the class dynamics, the relationship and interaction between classes, identical? Not entirely, a focus on class collaboration may be seen as different. Generally, however, it is the capitalist ruling class posessing hegemony. And in this you're absolutely right and therefore absolutely wrong. Recreating class dynamics, even in a restructured form, means that class dynamics remain the same, unchanged, and therefore the Bolshevik Party recreating class dynamics (albeit restructured) was a ruling minority class over the working classes. I do not suggest that ideology, consciousness, in itself changes class society.

As for you're attempted comedic routine, it strikes me as masking being cornered.


Belief in unquestionable dogma, in figures to interpret that dogma, in religious codes which sanction all sorts of reactionary social norms...

I second the comment by Per Levy.
Unquestionable dogma is those whom uphold Biblical literalism, of whom there are few and is not inherent in religion. Again, the MST shows that Catholic workers can be progressive and there is no need for these workers to be subject to public bullying or whatever means of "discouraging" their religion.


And yet you were the one making the claim that "1%" would be ruling over the "99%" just because the former happen to be atheists.

That was from Sea's perspective: it pushed his argument to its logical conclusion, and perhaps yours as well. If only atheistic Marxist-Leninists can build communism because they possess the proper intellectual, ideological, and analytical tools, then it follows that in Brazil a communist revolution would entail that 1% (and then I'm being generous) would rule over 99% of the population, as roughly 1.5% of its population is atheist. Atheism is associated with higher intelligence and high intelligence associated with prosperity, so the number of atheist proletarians is probably much smaller. Alternatively, if a workers' state will crack down on religious expression it implies that the majority of the workers governing the workers' state need to be militant atheists


Under communism religion will have been defeated as an organized force beforehand and the ranks of the religious will be practically nil. There is a need, however, for a conscious treatment of the problem of religion under socialism, seeing as how the physical and ideological remnants of the exploiting classes will exist during this transitional period, and will be promoted at every opportunity by the capitalist states.

I don't uphold your distinction of socialism and communism. Organised religion will gradually diminish of its own accord, any conscious effort made to get rid of it would require minority rule in the vast majority of the globe and hence is contrary to the DOTP and communism.


You seem to be under the impression that the October Revolution and the Albanian National Liberation War did not undercut much of the basis of the clergy and religious ideology.

They did, and they were minority ruling class regimes governing a capitalist society.


You're portraying what occurred in those countries as nothing more than administrative measures initiated from above, which wasn't the case.

They were regimes ruling top-down, so I suppose that policy objectives were articulated there.

[Goblin]

Christmas time is my favorite time of year, so no i wouldn't ban it. But the way we celebrate it should be changed though. Instead of celebrating that fat capitalist Santa, we should celebrate the guy the fucking holiday is supposed to be about, Jesus. So instead of buying your kids useless shit like Xboxes and Ps4's, take them out with you and help out the homeless.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Christmas time is my favorite time of year, so no i wouldn't ban it. But the way we celebrate it should be changed though. Instead of celebrating that fat capitalist Santa, we should celebrate the guy the fucking holiday is supposed to be about, Jesus. So instead of buying your kids useless shit like Xboxes and Ps4's, take them out with you and help out the homeless.

Christmas is a wonderful time of year in terms of being with the family.

But I don't understand the rest of your post.

Christmas should be about gift-giving within the family, there's nothing wrong with that at all. It's surely better than celebrating it as a religious holiday that is exclusive to Christians, no?

And also, I hate this 'help the homeless at christmas' crap. It's the sort of egoist crap that makes people feel good about themselves, and then they can stop such charitable activities as soon as christmas is over.

[Sea]

Yes they do actually. Of course, you pretend that you do not comprehend my point to evade it, but you know full well that a workers' state cracking down on religious expression would entail, in countries like Brazil, a rule of less than 1% of the population over 99%. In other words, your "workers' state" wouldn't be a workers' state and would inevitably reproduce and recreate class society and capitalism. I explained this clearly and I don't think you're too stupid to understand it, so I assume you're pretending to not get it so you don't have to address or confront your own contradictory stance on this.Your thesis that a crackdown on religion would entail a rule of "less than 1% of the population over 99%" assumes that people would just endorse whatever they personally believe. Moreover, it does not follow that, even if this were the case, those controlling the state wouldn't workers. Your explanation is only clear if you expect me to ignore such cases where you jump arbitrarily from point A to point B in your argument.
Of course it is. If you identify revisionism as the cause for market-oriented reforms, and in fact the restoration of an entire mode of production, then you identify ideology and ideas as the cause for social development (or regress for that matter). It's contrary to materialism. If you think that the only thing that had to change was the ideas of the ruling elite for a mode of production to have been sustained, then it's idealism.Revisionism is an excuse for, and a justification of, capitalist interests. It does not cause such interests. Nobody in this thread, neither Ismail nor I, has proposed that revisionist ideas just jump out of some book and infect everyone and everything. Capitalism exists, and has existed hundreds of years before Marxism, let alone revisionism. The corresponding ideas of capitalist trends within the worker's movement (read: revisionism) are reflections of these concrete modes of production which are mediated by concrete material things. There is not an ounce of idealism to be found anywhere. Nobody has, to my knowledge, claimed revisionism as the cause of anything that didn't already concretely exist.
You haven't put much thought in this have you? The rise of fascism over liberal capitalism, for instance, has materialist underpinnings and changes class society in an effort to stabilise capital. You have to be delusional to think fascism and liberal capitalism function identically. Yes, both are capitalist class society, but the role of fascism in restructuring the management of capital is clearly different from that of liberal democracy. Are the class dynamics, the relationship and interaction between classes, identical? Not entirely, a focus on class collaboration may be seen as different. Generally, however, it is the capitalist ruling class posessing hegemony. And in this you're absolutely right and therefore absolutely wrong. Recreating class dynamics, even in a restructured form, means that class dynamics remain the same, unchanged, and therefore the Bolshevik Party recreating class dynamics (albeit restructured) was a ruling minority class over the working classes. I do not suggest that ideology, consciousness, in itself changes class society.Firstly, this seems like nitpicking over what is meant by the phrase "class dynamics". Restructuring, from Thatcherite Britain to labor Sweden to Iran to North Korea to the Third Reich, does not change those things which are inherent to capitalism itself, precisely because capitalism prevails in all of those instances. This is what I meant when I stated that "[n]one of those things change the class dynamics". Secondly, class collaboration does not contradict the actions of any of the examples you have given. As to your third point, which incidentally contradicts your first, I repeat that classes are economical in nature. The fight against capitalism does not reduce itself to a simple shuffling-around simply because the more advanced elements of the working class are working to eliminate certain bourgeois remnants (such as religion) which the vast majority still hold on to. You are conflating what is done with the percentage that do it.
As for you're attempted comedic routine, it strikes me as masking being cornered.Glad you like'd it. By the way, it's your, not you're.

[bcbm]

merry christmas haters

[Hiphop4love]

My ideas:

No, i wouldn't. I personally do not celebrate it, but who am I to say what's right or wrong? I have my opinions and ideas about organized religions, but people have the freedom to believe what they want. If they find comfort in it and it empowers them, that's great! But when they use it to justify harming others physically or mentally or killing others in the name it, that is way over the line. The division that religion creates by labeling people based on belief is a problem and leads to conflict. Yet, it can be combated by true love and respect for others and beliefs. Believing that there are "multiple rivers, that lead to the same source." The elites want us divided. When the masses see this, I think true change can start to spark. :):):)

peace and love