Is it in anyway possible for certain religions to exist with historical materialism?

[Comrade Jacob]

Can any religions or sects of religions go along with historical-materialism? Is it at all possible?
Could you change religion in order to make it compatible?

[Sinister Intents]

From my understanding of it religion and materialism don't mix, religions are anti-materialistic, so no. Other than that I'm not very eloquent to explain at this time, but I hope I answered it well enough...

[bropasaran]

Calvinism, some strands of Lutheranism and Catholicism, and also a lot of Sunni Islam have determinism of some sort in their theologies, so I guess that one could accept one of those and accept maxist view of history along with it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Calvinism, some strands of Lutheranism and Catholicism, and also a lot of Sunni Islam have determinism of some sort in their theologies, so I guess that one could accept one of those and accept maxist view of history along with it.

They concern two entirely different subjects. It does not follow that since they could both be labeled 'deterministic' that therefore they are compatible.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Perhaps deism?

[bropasaran]

They concern two entirely different subjects. It does not follow that since they could both be labeled 'deterministic' that therefore they are compatible.
If one is coming from a religious perspective and wants to accept the marxist view of history, if his religion doesn't have some sort of determinism in it, to incorporate marxism in his set of views would mean to mean to end up with some eclectic mashpot worldview which wouldn't even look serious on the surface, let alone when examined. The only way that a person from a religious perspective can take marxist the view of history without going into a too large of a contradiction with his religious tradition is only if he is already a part of a tradition that accepts some sort of determinism or belief that god exerts strong influence over what happens it the world (either directly or by establishing laws of history), and that means pretty much only a few religious traditions, which I mentioned.

[Vanguard1917]

Can religious belief can be reconciled with historical materialism? Not without allowing for some pretty fundamental logical inconsistencies.


Calvinism, some strands of Lutheranism and Catholicism, and also a lot of Sunni Islam have determinism of some sort in their theologies, so I guess that one could accept one of those and accept maxist view of history along with it.

I assume you're referring to some kind of divine determinism. Then all the main religions are deterministic. But i'm not sure why you say that makes them more compatible with Marxism.

[Tim Cornelis]

If one is coming from a religious perspective and wants to accept the marxist view of history, if his religion doesn't have some sort of determinism in it, to incorporate marxism in his set of views would mean to mean to end up with some eclectic mashpot worldview which wouldn't even look serious on the surface, let alone when examined. The only way that a person from a religious perspective can take marxist the view of history without going into a too large of a contradiction with his religious tradition is only if he is already a part of a tradition that accepts some sort of determinism or belief that god exerts strong influence over what happens it the world (either directly or by establishing laws of history), and that means pretty much only a few religious traditions, which I mentioned.

Why, this is utterly begging the question? Why is it that "only if he is already a part of a tradition that accepts some sort of determinism or belief that god exerts strong influence over what happens it the world" he can accept historical materialism? How does historical materialism (some may wrongly call it economic determinism) relate at all to theological determinism? They have no overlap in content.

[Slavic]

Can any religions or sects of religions go along with historical-materialism? Is it at all possible?
Could you change religion in order to make it compatible?

Are you asking can religious organizations incorporate a materialism understanding of history?

Or are you asking are religious organization created from material conditions?

[bropasaran]

Why, this is utterly begging the question? Why is it that "only if he is already a part of a tradition that accepts some sort of determinism or belief that god exerts strong influence over what happens it the world" he can accept historical materialism? How does historical materialism (some may wrongly call it economic determinism) relate at all to theological determinism? They have no overlap in content.
"If one is coming from a religious perspective and wants to accept the marxist view of history, if his religion doesn't have some sort of determinism in it, to incorporate marxism in his set of views would mean to mean to end up with some eclectic mashpot worldview which wouldn't even look serious on the surface, let alone when examined."

There is simply a huge contradiction between the marxist view of history and a religious tradition that doesn't have some notion of determinism in it, because if it doesn't have some notion of determinism in it, as the logical consequence of such metaphysical libertarianism it must hold the view that basically any activity of people was possible at any time, that is- that it was perfectly possible two millenia ago for people to abolish slavery and establish a communistic society. Afaik, this is in direct contradiction to the marxist (/marx') view of history.

[consuming negativity]

Buddhism, daoism, and hinduism are all *potentially* compatible with Marxist thought.

[Tim Cornelis]

"If one is coming from a religious perspective and wants to accept the marxist view of history, if his religion doesn't have some sort of determinism in it, to incorporate marxism in his set of views would mean to mean to end up with some eclectic mashpot worldview which wouldn't even look serious on the surface, let alone when examined."

There is simply a huge contradiction between the marxist view of history and a religious tradition that doesn't have some notion of determinism in it, because if it doesn't have some notion of determinism in it, as the logical consequence of such metaphysical libertarianism it must hold the view that basically any activity of people was possible at any time [non sequitur], that is- that it was perfectly possible two millenia ago for people to abolish slavery and establish a communistic society. Afaik, this is in direct contradiction to the marxist (/marx') view of history.

No it does not follow from that premise at all. So these "metaphysical libertarians" have the same theological position as atheists: god did not guide human development. It does not follow from this that therefore they believe "any activity of people was possible at any time". I do not uphold theological determinism, and yet I do not uphold this idealist paradigm. Why can't these people that do not uphold theological determinism say 'human progress is guided by the material conditions'? You've not presented a coherent argument.


Buddhism, daoism, and hinduism are all *potentially* compatible with Marxist thought.

Why?

[bropasaran]

Why can't these people that do not uphold theological determinism say 'human progress is guided by the material conditions'?
The only way they could do that is to accept Epicurean theology where god didn't create the world and doesn't have any influence on it. Believing in theological determinism and historical determinism for a religious person is one and the same because they hold that god made the world and it's laws, including the laws of history (if accept that those exist).


So these "metaphysical libertarians" have the same theological position as atheists: god did not guide human development. It does not follow from this that therefore they believe "any activity of people was possible at any time".
It does follow because anything other then humans that would guide the development of the human society would from the theological position be a force that was created by god. I have already poined this out when I said: "The only way that a person from a religious perspective can take marxist the view of history without going into a too large of a contradiction with his religious tradition is only if he is already a part of a tradition that accepts some sort of determinism or belief that god exerts strong influence over what happens it the world (either directly or by establishing laws of history)".

[synthesis]

Theological determinism is not compatible with historical materialism, because it takes all agency away from the working class.

[Red Economist]

Some Marxists had 'religious beliefs' but an orthodox view is no, they don't mix. There were the 'god-builders' in the Early Bolshevik Party (who wanted Socialism to be a religion because they thought they needed to satisfy the emotional needs of the proletariat) but Lenin rejected this. Despite the best efforts of the USSR to eliminate religion, a poll in the 1930's showed that a majority of people still have a belief in a god', but did not specify which one. I think in Poland a large number of communist party members were Catholics. There is also 'Islamic Marxism' which had an influence on current Islamic Fundamentalism from which they adopted the use of the term 'imperialist west'. I think there was an attempt to combine Islam and Marxism in Central Asia in the Twenties (purged by Stalin).
I'm stretching waaaaaay beyond my knowledge, but I've heard 'liberation theology' had some Marxist associations- but this could also be a right-wing label.
But it trying to put religion and Marxism together poses 'huge' problems because the 'materialism' originates from Fuerbach, who was a humanist-atheist philosopher. If you're looking for internal/logical consistency- historical materialism and religion don't mix. But Marxism is not the only form of socialism out there and various religious have produced their own brands of socialism based on their egalitarian or pacifist beliefs.

[Comrade Jacob]

Are you asking can religious organizations incorporate a materialism understanding of history?

^Yes.

[SonofRage]

Buddhism, daoism, and hinduism are all *potentially* compatible with Marxist thought.

It depends on the sect, but I agree that there are strands in Buddhist thought that are compatible. There is even a system of Buddhist dialectics that is similar to dialectical materialism but is somewhat different. See Zen Master Gudo Nishijima's Understanding Shobogenzo (http://www.thezensite.com/zenwritings/understandingShobogenzo.pdf):



It sometimes seems, in the first paragraph of Genjo Koan, that Master Dogen may be suggesting the
existence of a strange area of the intellect which is not idealistic or materialistic or a combination of the
two. But I think this is a misunderstanding of what he means by transcendence of abundance and scarcity.
To transcend abundance and scarcity means to get out of the areas of intellect and sense perception, it does
not mean to get rid of these two areas within the intellect—it is not an intellectual denial of the intellect
resulting in “Emptiness.” It is impossible for us to rid ourselves of the difference between abundance and
scarcity within the areas of mind and sense perception. But Gautama Buddha and Master Dogen alike
discovered that area which is not within the mind or perception—the area of action. The discovery of this
area and the clarification of its nature in philosophical terms solves the problem of the conflict between
idealism and materialism. This is Buddhism’s true contribution to world philosophy.

Both Hegel and Marx seemed to have noticed the need for a resolution to this conflict, and they both
attempted to find a philosophy that rose above this difference. Neither was successful, because their
philosophies did not in the end point to a reality beyond the areas of the intellect or sense perception.
Although Hegel’s interest in world history suggests his interest in the real world outside the world of
ideas, he became trapped in his concept of “world spirit” which pulled him back to intellectual
conclusions. Marx’s interest in material solutions trapped him in his belief in the ultimate reality of
matter, and in the end he too, failed in his attempts to transcend the conflict.

Buddhist dialectic, however, differs in important ways from Hegelian or Marxist dialectic in that Buddhist
dialectic has four phases—thesis, antithesis, synthesis and reality. The Buddhist dialectic says that there
are three kinds of ways to view reality, but in the end the object of our explanations does not exist in our
intelligence; it exists as it is in nameless reality. So in this sense, Buddhist philosophy serves as a bridge
between philosophy and reality. This is why Buddhist theory seems so difficult to grasp.

Finally, reality cannot be put into words. Buddhists use the simile of a finger pointing at the moon. The
moon is a symbol for reality and the finger is symbolic of philosophical explanation. Ironically, the
Hegelian and Marxist dialectics remain trapped by the excellence of their intellectual explanations. But
Buddhism points to the real world in an essentially practical way.

It is a sad and yet amusing fact that we human beings have for thousands of years mistaken the picture of
the world that we have constructed with our excellent intellectual abilities for the real world in which we
exist. We have failed to recognize the existence of reality. Even though we are living in reality, we are
largely unable to recognize the fact.

But Gautama Buddha recognized that fact after his practical efforts in pursuing the truth, and I feel that the
world is now entering a new phase—a phase in which we are finding out the nature of the reality in which
we live; not a world only of the mind, nor a world of material substance alone, but a real world. This, I
believe, is the reason why many people are now showing an interest in Buddhist belief.

Interestingly, it seems to me that what Zen Master Nishijima is saying can be boiled down the Marx's last Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." The only thing that is truly real is action, what you are doing. Nishijima's critique, in my view, is compatible with dialectical materialism as I undertand it.

[Zoroaster]

To Russian Red:

Absolutely. I'm a deist and a follower of historical materialism.

[Dagoth Ur]

Bourgeoisie atheists said that religion could never be made to agree with capitalist production (as they were highly connected to the feudal order for power and material) but lo and behold the capitalists have fully converted religion to their own purposes. The change in bases will again transform religion. Either that or religion will just dry up and die but I see no justification for that belief.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

I have a bit of trouble with historical materialism in that it typically presumes the existence of past modes of production that frankly never existed. Specifically, the whole idea of servile feudalism has largely been debunked during the past two decades. The whole idea of feudalism--whatever that might mean--is based on an unwitting projection of modern values onto medieval sources and the tendency to take 13th and 14th century norms as typical of the entire medieval millennium. Serfdom itself was not a monolithic institution meaning different things at different times and places, and in any case having largely died out before the 12th c. In short, everything we thought we knew about the Middle Ages is wrong.

Further, history is entirely contingent and as dependent on unpredictable events as on economics (which could be unpredictable anyway). Frankly, the whole concept of historical materialism seems a bit teleological, as if all previous history exists only to explain how we got to the modern age.

But to answer the question, I don't see who a purely deterministic reality can possibly exist if there is divine agency. At least one of those two perspectives must be wrong.