Should Communism/Socialism Allow Religion?

[4thInter]

So im guessing everyone on here who's not an anarchist has read the Communist Manifesto, if not here you go. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...ist-manifesto/
Anyways we all know he mentions that religion is the opium of the people. Meaning they find comfort in something that'll only last for a little bit. But the problem is that the people are too afraid to take the needle out of their arm and wake up that they can empower themselves.

And i guess where I'm going with this is should religion be instantly banned, or allowed but condemn it with propaganda so it slowly dies off?

[The Idler]

the latter rather than the former I think

[4thInter]

the latter rather than the former I think
So your saying you think w shouldn't worry because its nearing its end?

[Dialectical_Materialist]

I think that's the vulgar understanding of the phrase. Opium in Marx's day was used not only as a recreational drug but also as a pain killer for the chronically ill.

When he likened religion to opium I think he was doing so in the "pain killer" sense:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Marx - A Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

Such that to make people give up religion's is a kin to making a chronically ill person give up his opium:

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

The point should be to remove the conditions that cause the suffering that leads people to religion.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

What is this nonsense about religion being allowed/banned? I don't think you understand what communism is. The whole point of communism is that it transcends the need for both theism AND atheism, making both redundant ways of understanding humanity in the universe. God as we know it would no longer have any meaning, it wouldn't be necessary to interpret the world. In other words, communism is the process of creating new means of living that are not inhibited by clericalism, anthropomorphism or by some kind of spiritual world from which everyday existence is rooted in. God's existence is not important.

You are simply taking an atheist and crude materialist stance towards religion.

[Tim Cornelis]

If religion is the opiate of the masses keeping them contend with the present order of things, then banning religion post-revolution wouldn't make sense now would it? Also, if there is no state, who is going to do the banning?

(also, you're*)

[BolshevikBabe]

Banning religion completely is the wrong way to go about things. I definitely think we should promote materialist and antireligious propaganda, but at the same time, changes in social consciousness will follow on from changes in social being - we must aim to destroy the exploitation and misery which gives rise to religion in the first place.

[Skyhilist]

"Socialism/Communism" is a movement and set of ideas, not some entity that enforces laws, so it wouldn't allow or disallow anything. If you're asking about whether religion should be allowed then you're also necessarily asking about who will be in place (if anyone) to decide what is allowed. However, under communism there is no state that makes judgement calls about what is allowed or not allowed, so this decision-making entity that you're referring to wouldn't exist. Religion therefore could exist - but if communism had been achieved, it's unlikely that it would play anywhere near as large a role in society as it does now.

[Skyhilist]

So im guessing everyone on here who's not an anarchist has read the Communist Manifesto

Oh yeah also, anarchists on here are just as likely to have read the Communist Manifesto as Marxists and others. Just because we aren't Marxist doesn't mean we have some puritan adherence to reading only anarchist texts.

[Comrade Jacob]

Banning religion will never make it go away.

[4thInter]

Banning religion will never make it go away.
yeah i guess your right, stalin tried banning religion but accidentally made a cult of personality...

[BolshevikBabe]

In general, repression (as opposed to propaganda, cultural revolutions, campaigns and other ideological battles) needs to be curtailed as much as possible. Some repression is inevitable, because the old ruling class and their allies will try and strike back against any new proletarian state and they need to be dealt with. At the same time, we should aim to resolve all non-antagonistic class contradictions through other means, for example between the petit bourgeoisie and the proletariat, or the peasantry and the proletariat (although the peasantry in its traditional form is very much non-existent in much of the world now).

With regards to religion, repression is appropriate only in very limited circumstances, and we should focus on winning the war for people's minds rather than aggressively trying to stamp out any religious feeling through force and the state apparatus. Engels condemned Duhring for that very mistake, for not seeing that the "abolition of religion" is to come about through social change, not through state action.

[Christian Insurrectionist]

So im guessing everyone on here who's not an anarchist has read the Communist Manifesto, if not here you go.

I've read the manifesto before. I find it boring as hell.



Anyways we all know he mentions that religion is the opium of the people. Meaning they find comfort in something that'll only last for a little bit. But the problem is that the people are too afraid to take the needle out of their arm and wake up that they can empower themselves.This has little to do with what Marx is actually saying, and has very little relevance towards some religious traditions(aka religious existentialism and most forms of mysticism). Read some Kierkegaard, Bohme, or Altizer for example, none of these people saw Christianity as a source of comfort and thought that being a Christian authentically required one to know how to suffer and that a refusal to suffer was a refusal of Christ.


And i guess where I'm going with this is should religion be instantly banned, or allowed but condemn it with propaganda so it slowly dies off?Neither, and I find it unlikely that religion will die off just because communism is here or whatever and I have very little interest in assaulting a nebulous non-concept when there is a material structure(the Church) that does cause harm and repression. Note: Church =/=religion. (and yes, I know what William Blake Proverb from Hell I have as a signature)

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I would think / hope that in a communist society the need for religion and religious institutions would become less and it would eventually 'die out'. The concept of a blanket ban is a very risky one, has bad connotations with authoratative regimes that stifle anything they view as wrong or unacceptable (and I've met at least a couple of religious people in my life who are very decent so attacking them all as enemies of materialism that need to be stamped out is unsettling).
More and more I feel like as long as religion is kept out of decision making as much as possible, it's very existence needn't be a threat or hinderance to a revolution or the society that follows (it could be a personal matter that does not infringe on others).

[RedRev]

I think it should be allowed as long as they don't push their religion on everyone else, and try to use their beliefs to justify any right-wing ideology.

[sixdollarchampagne]

First of all, I think skyhilist very adeptly exposed the logical difficulty in expecting "communism" (that is, society without a state) to "disallow" religion (or very much else).

I think BolshevikBabe wrote very eloquently about the need to "destroy the exploitation and misery" that Marxism sees as being the reason for religious faith.

I was surprised to find that I agree with something Cde Jacob wrote, namely that an outright ban on religion is no solution. The history of the USSR and the other workers' states proves that; bloody repression of believers would simply intensify fervor, I think.

It will be interesting, in the future, after the workers' victory, to see whether religion actually disappears or not. I am betting that it won't, because religion responds to needs in many people that even justice in society cannot eradicate. So I think it is highly unlikely there will ever be a totally atheistic society.

[RedWorker]

Communism means ultimate freedom for individuals despite what crypto-fascist pseudo-communists here or anywhere else may try to convince you.

Banning religion? By who? The state? Where is the state in communism? If religion is banned, people aren't going to tolerate that. You'd need to enforce more authoritarian policies to get people to not rebel. And thus this would result in a wave that would result in a Stalinist authoritarian state capitalist regime.

What does banning religion even mean? Controlling people's thoughts? Not allowing churches? Not allowing certain speech? Where is the line?

This is why authoritarianism is a terrible idea. You can't do it a degree. Either you don't do it or you completely institute a far-right social hierarchy, slowly but surely, because otherwise the shit isn't gonna work.

[Redistribute the Rep]

We persecute nobody for religion. We regard religion as an error and fight it with education.

[bropasaran]

- "The abolition of all state religions and all privileged churches, including those partially maintained or supported by state subsidies. Absolute liberty of every religion to build temples to their gods, and to pay and support their priests.

- The churches considered as religious corporations must never enjoy the same political rights accorded to the productive associations; nor can they be entrusted with the education of children; for they exist merely to negate morality and liberty and to profit from the lucrative practice of witchcraft."

Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism

[Црвена]

Religion should exist, I just think that it should be an individual matter and not a collective one (the only matter that is individual). People should be allowed to practice religion as long as they don't try to force it on others and it doesn't interfere with their tasks in society.

[Chomskyan]

Absolutely. Unless the authority of the Church interferes in any way with the society.

For example, say a Calvinist Geneva, or a Catholic Europe, should be resisted. Since, they impose a theocratic political agenda on others, without their consent.

Independent, self-governing religious institutions shouldn't be impeded of their affairs.

[Non-Aligned]

Banning religion completely is an elitist concept. Elitist in the way that people in the echelons of power deciding what's best for the people rather than allowing the people to decide that personal matter for themselves. Besides, people tend to rebel against tyrannical edicts such as banning religion by embracing religion more so.

[KobeB]

For example look the Arab states, predominantly they follow socialist model, but of course the population follows Islam.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Imma be Muslim whether yinz like it or not. Sorrynotsorry.

More importantly, religion is a private matter for the individual to engage in if they so choose. Forced irreligion is no less tyrannical than forced religion. There's nothing progressive about Atheism so really this dead horse surrounding religious expression in general, post-revolution in some hypothetical society is silly.

[Rafiq]

All forms of spiritualism and all creative 'self expressed' forms of spiritualism can only derive and have their foundational origins in religions with social and political implications. There is no such thing as 'individual spirituality' or 'my own beliefs'. They all carry the same underlying ideological presumptions that make it so they are nothing more than apologists. Dare I say they are just different cosmetic styles for the same religious archetypes. They cannot fight their superstitions or beliefs, and at the same time they want to be "open minded" and "enlightened". So they guise their reactionary beliefs under things like new age spiritualism.

It is not a matter of personal belief. communism will smash religion and its social place so that very little separates a backwoods cult from Christianity or Islam. Perhaps then, categorically this will be an issue of psychological treatment.

[DOOM]

As a marxist, I would argue that religion is merely the product of class societies and with their end religion will vanish.

[Gary]

What is this nonsense about religion being allowed/banned? I don't think you understand what communism is. The whole point of communism is that it transcends the need for both theism AND atheism, making both redundant ways of understanding humanity in the universe. God as we know it would no longer have any meaning, it wouldn't be necessary to interpret the world. In other words, communism is the process of creating new means of living that are not inhibited by clericalism, anthropomorphism or by some kind of spiritual world from which everyday existence is rooted in. God's existence is not important.

You are simply taking an atheist and crude materialist stance towards religion.

Nothing "transcends the need for theism AND atheism". Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god, not an actual belief system of its own. Everybody in the world is technically an atheist about all religions other than their own, and that makes theists really quite hypocritical. Atheism is the only honest stance that can be taken regarding religion, that the burden of proof has not been met.

Anyway, religion is quite corrosive in its effect on society, sapping both societies and individuals resources and time. If left unchecked, religion has proven again and again to disrupt and damage the very fabric of society itself. More so, there is not a single society that I can think of that hasn't been effected in one way or another by this evil.
In short, I have always thought the best way to deal with religion is to ban it from publicly owned land, not allow the building of churches or anyone in public office to use it to form legislation. It shouldn't of course be banned completely, but should be banned from schools and other educational establishments. Personal worship should be allowed with the leasing of other public, multi use buildings for its practice, but not the permanent erection of any religious symbol.
Religion is not the opiate of society. More the cancer that necessitates its use.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

As a marxist, I would argue that religion is merely the product of class societies and with their end religion will vanish.

This is just silly, please (lmao), please tell me how my religious beliefs are a byproduct of class society and how post-revolution I'll just drop that? Atheists come up with the silliest ideas concerning faith. If you don't 'get' spirituality and the paranormal then just let it alone.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

RE: the original post.

What does that even mean? Ideologies don't allow or disallow anything. Do you mean, should the rulers of a communist society allow religious freedom?

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

"This is just silly, please (lmao), please tell me how my religious beliefs are a byproduct of class society and how post-revolution I'll just drop that? Atheists come up with the silliest ideas concerning faith. If you don't 'get' spirituality and the paranormal then just let it alone."

Said the person who believes that a powerful, yet undetectable creator of the universe micromanages her life. I don't "get" the so-called paranormal because it does not exist.

[DOOM]

This is just silly, please (lmao), please tell me how my religious beliefs are a byproduct of class society and how post-revolution I'll just drop that? Atheists come up with the silliest ideas concerning faith. If you don't 'get' spirituality and the paranormal then just let it alone.

I'm not actually believing this (hence this "As a Marxist"-part).
In fact, I'm a muslim. But yeah, I'm getting your point

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not actually believing this (hence this "As a Marxist"-part).
In fact, I'm a muslim. But yeah, I'm getting your point

O really? In that case:

Ramadan Moubarak

Ramadan Kariem

[Diirez]

In today's world, I don't think you can have a revolution and instantly ban religion. You're just going to piss off a lot of people (which isn't going to help the revolution) and the rest of the world (it does matter.)

If you allow religion but keep it strictly out of the government level, I don't see an issue. Let religion die on it's own, trying to force it out will not only have the people resent you and fight you, it'll also make people's faith stronger.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For example look the Arab states, predominantly they follow socialist model, but of course the population follows Islam.

Socialism means the socialisation of the means of production, the abolition of class society etc. Needless to say, none of the "Arab states" have been remotely socialist. Nor were any of them led by socialist parties, with the arguable exception of south Yemen.


This is just silly, please (lmao), please tell me how my religious beliefs are a byproduct of class society and how post-revolution I'll just drop that? Atheists come up with the silliest ideas concerning faith. If you don't 'get' spirituality and the paranormal then just let it alone.

We would, but "spirituality" refuses to leave us alone. As for you, yourself, presumably you will never "drop" your religion. But the new generations brought up in a classless society will have no need for religion to serve, either as an ideological arm of the bourgeois state (since there will be no state, let alone a bourgeois one) or as a placebo for earthly happiness (since there will be earthly happiness aplenty).

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm not actually believing this (hence this "As a Marxist"-part).
In fact, I'm a muslim. But yeah, I'm getting your point

Oh woah, I'm sorry brother. :o


We would, but "spirituality" refuses to leave us alone. As for you, yourself, presumably you will never "drop" your religion. But the new generations brought up in a classless society will have no need for religion to serve, either as an ideological arm of the bourgeois state (since there will be no state, let alone a bourgeois one) or as a placebo for earthly happiness (since there will be earthly happiness aplenty).

Yeah but here again, you as an outsider, are presupposing spirituality stems from earthly dissatisfaction or, or, whatever. Again, you don't understand religion.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Marx compared religion to the Opium of the masses while Lenin called it a sort of spiritual Vodka. Now who most often turn to drugs or alcohol as a means of escaping their very bleak lives? Many people within the working class who are essentially lost and need something to dull the misery of their everyday lives. Communism is meant to essentialy abolish the need for a opium (well today i guess you could say Crack for the masses) or liquor of the masses but i don't think it implies that religion should be totally abolished just that the conditions that create the need for it be.

I dislike religion quite abit coming from a Catholic background and dating women of other religions and having to put up with some of that. But i don't think that those who have religion in their lives should be taken out and shot like Fascists or anything.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah but here again, you as an outsider, are presupposing spirituality stems from earthly dissatisfaction or, or, whatever. Again, you don't understand religion.

Well, no, obviously most "spirituality" is due to the indoctrination of children, something that will obviously not happen in socialism. That is why I emphasised that, far from being something "neutral", religion, or "spirituality" or however you want to call it (I would find these differences that don't make a difference hilarious if they weren't used to excuse real oppression), is an instrument of bourgeois rule. But many people that turn to religion as adults do so because their lives aren't exactly going well.

[Rosa Partizan]

Vox, I'm not sure about that spirituality-part. While I understand people's desire for the world to be more than a combination of molecules, I don't see how one would necessarily need institutionalized religion that tells you how to live this "spirituality" and that threatens you with an awful afterlife if you don't live by their rules. Religion as we know it nowadays is super oppressive and misogynist. And as 870 already mentioned, who knows if in a better society people would have the need to have divine explanations for the world. If at all, everyone could believe what they wanted to, but not in any organized, institutionalized way.

[Brotto Rühle]

All forms of spiritualism and all creative 'self expressed' forms of spiritualism can only derive and have their foundational origins in religions with social and political implications. There is no such thing as 'individual spirituality' or 'my own beliefs'. They all carry the same underlying ideological presumptions that make it so they are nothing more than apologists. Dare I say they are just different cosmetic styles for the same religious archetypes. They cannot fight their superstitions or beliefs, and at the same time they want to be "open minded" and "enlightened". So they guise their reactionary beliefs under things like new age spiritualism.

It is not a matter of personal belief. communism will smash religion and its social place so that very little separates a backwoods cult from Christianity or Islam. Perhaps then, categorically this will be an issue of psychological treatment.

Ernst Bloch bro. Check him out.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, no, obviously most "spirituality" is due to the indoctrination of children, something that will obviously not happen in socialism.

Again that is an assumption on your part, you're bias is clouding any semblance of proper of religion. The irony also in the above is not going unmissed here.


That is why I emphasised that, far from being something "neutral", religion, or "spirituality" or however you want to call it (I would find these differences that don't make a difference hilarious if they weren't used to excuse real oppression)

I use them interchangeably and as synonyms. So really, don't read to much into it or get snarky with me mister.


is an instrument of bourgeois rule.

Religion has also been a means to subvert bourgeois rule and combat Fascism. But no, let's just focus on the negative aspects that really have nothing inherently to do with religion or why people are religious.


But many people that turn to religion as adults do so because their lives aren't exactly going well.

Again another presumption. Even when I've been at the height of any sales hot streak and things were going well legitimately I still went to Church and was a good Orthodox Christian and later my reversion to Islam wasn't brought about by sadness more pleasant and thought provoking conversation. I've clung to religion in the good and the bad because my faith is me.


Vox, I'm not sure about that spirituality-part. While I understand people's desire for the world to be more than a combination of molecules, I don't see how one would necessarily need institutionalized religion that tells you how to live this "spirituality" and that threatens you with an awful afterlife if you don't live by their rules.

This your own perception of 'organized religion.' Not mine, when I go to jummuah I don't see it as some oppressive thing that I have to do because some beardy males threaten me with supernatural Hellfire. That's a pretty simplistic and juvenile view of organized religion. I go because I feel compelled to out of my own spiritual convictions and when I go I see fellow Muslims trying to do the same and all of us in fraternity and solidarity towards our commitment to the deen and to God. It's probably one of the most powerful experiences I've ever had and I love going.

I don't follow anybody's rules, not even my own. :cool:


Religion as we know it nowadays is super oppressive and misogynist.

Assumptions and generalities.


And as 870 already mentioned, who knows if in a better society people would have the need to have divine explanations for the world. If at all, everyone could believe what they wanted to, but not in any organized, institutionalized way.

I think the term 'organized religion' is pretty meaningless within this context and again, you guys are assuming, to put it humorously, of people jus find Marx and Dawkins and we all living that good full commie lifestyle everyone would just be Atheist and happy and blah blah blah. I'm sorry baby but thas just silly to me. Perhaps yinz have had bad experiences with religion but not all religious experience is like that. The masjid I go to is way cool and full of awesome people who would give you the food of their plate to help you and just all around a very positive environment. I don't need things explained through my religious belief, that's just a given and self-evident. I don't accept the typical false dichotomies usually accepted with these sorts of things.

http://www.nathanjamesnorman.com/uploads/9/7/2/2/9722144/3481919_orig.jpg

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Again that is an assumption on your part, you're bias is clouding any semblance of proper of religion. The irony also in the above is not going unmissed here.

What assumption? That religious indoctrination plays a role in the reproduction of religion as an ideological system? Not only is this fairly obvious, anyone who denies it is welcome to explain the massive drop in the number of religious in states that have (to a greater or lesser degree) dispensed with religious instruction, the states of the former Eastern Bloc for example.

Also, I hate to be that guy, but "clouding any semblance of proper of religion" doesn't really tell me anything. It seems that you're claiming to have some profound understanding of religion, but you never state it.


I use them interchangeably and as synonyms. So really, don't read to much into it or get snarky with me mister.

Look, I have been alive for just over a quarter of a century (now there's a frightening thought), and if I had a penny for every time I heard someone talk about some vague "spirituality" that is distinct from religion in some unspecified way and that is in fact just like religion with all the bad bits (you know, the ones that are actually socially relevant) cut off I could retire right away.


Religion has also been a means to subvert bourgeois rule and combat Fascism. But no, let's just focus on the negative aspects that really have nothing inherently to do with religion or why people are religious.

Yeah, let's focus on the negative aspects because these are the aspects that are actually relevant to workers, women, gay people and so on. If someone punches me I won't particularly care for the fact that he has a very nice tattoo on his knuckles.

But since you've brought it up - surely you can give some examples of religion "subverting bourgeois rule"? "Combating fascism" is something that even the "democratic" Allies could do, so it's a bit of a moot point.

[Tim Cornelis]

In primitive communism, people did not have organised religion or even vague spiritual beliefs. They were apatheists. This suggests that the origin of religion as explaining what could not be understood without science is not the whole picture, and as Marxists the element of class would be a large suspect. And Marxists do have theories for the origin of religion, but I'm not personally familiar with them, not to the extend that I can comment on whether it is accurate.

In communism, the social function of religion ceases. As we saw in Western Europe, the existence of the welfare state relieved people of their dependence on religious institutions with, as consequence, secularisation. And quite rigid secularisation, sometimes over a single generation (all four my grandparents were church-going religious folk, but every single of their children -- 8 -- are atheists). Where religious institutions managed to remain dominant in social life organised religion stayed -- the Dutch bible belt and religious communities amongst migrants.* When I was roughly 12 I was tempted to join Islam, not because I actually believed there was a god, but because loads of my friends were muslim, they had shared rituals (like ramadan), there was a sense of community and collective identity, which was really appealing to me -- it was 'cool'.

In communism, actual communities provide the human need for community, and alienation has disappeared. Presumably, collective education in communism will be secular, so there's no basis for indoctrination neither. And of course, communism provides social welfare. This deprives organised religion of the source for its reproduction. And it would seem then that in communism religion would disappear. But, secularisation in welfare states has not done away with the concept of Gods. Many people are irreligeious but not atheists, so this is another possibility. I don't know the 'class reason' for the existence of religion so I don't know whether it is safe to say whether religion will disappear in communism.

*Still, in the 1990s Dutch muslims were less religious than American christians. For instance, Dutch muslims visited the mosque less than American christians did the church. Recently, this number has been going up, which sociologists is a result of far-right bashing which causes muslims to retreat back into their (former) culture -- this social phenomenon has a name but I forgot what it was.


(hence this "As a Marxist"-part).

Saying 'as an X, ...' is shorthand for 'as an X, I believe'.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What assumption? That religious indoctrination plays a role in the reproduction of religion as an ideological system? Not only is this fairly obvious, anyone who denies it is welcome to explain the massive drop in the number of religious in states that have (to a greater or lesser degree) dispensed with religious instruction, the states of the former Eastern Bloc for example.

The fuck are talking about? Even despite the Soviets trying dismantle the Church, 90% of my countrymen still identify as Orthodox. This is in spite of a long history of suppression, humiliation of the religious, state atheism, atheism being taught in schools, reeducation facilities and so on. You're making the assumption that more education and less formal religious instruction equates to alleged decrease in religiosity. Would you care to extol the accomplishments of Pitești incident in this respect?


Also, I hate to be that guy, but "clouding any semblance of proper of religion" doesn't really tell me anything.

Should have read any semblance of a proper understanding of religion but I guess Siri felt different.


It seems that you're claiming to have some profound understanding of religion, but you never state it.

No I'm not.


Look, I have been alive for just over a quarter of a century (now there's a frightening thought),

And I've celebrated my 18th birthing day for the past 6 years now.


and if I had a penny for every time I heard someone talk about some vague "spirituality" that is distinct from religion in some unspecified way and that is in fact just like religion with all the bad bits (you know, the ones that are actually socially relevant) cut off I could retire right away.

Thought my clarification was sufficient but you're still not understanding me. Idunno.


Yeah, let's focus on the negative aspects because these are the aspects that are actually relevant to workers, women, gay people and so on.

Which aren't inherent to any religion and often violate said creed of the religion which them are doing in its name. Sure there are some negative aspects of what we know as 'religion' but these are more social, cultural, ideological and political problems ties with religious expression. Which is to say, change said material conditions and you can eliminate those problems but religion itself isn't the problem or a problem or a lack of education or an intellectual impairment and it is for these reasons critiques of religion stemming from this fall flat on their face.


But since you've brought it up - surely you can give some examples of religion "subverting bourgeois rule"? "Combating fascism" is something that even the "democratic" Allies could do, so it's a bit of a moot point.

here is some stuff (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Islam)

and here (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism)

and here (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology)

getting tired yet? (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_who_fought_against_the_real_fascists/0010741)

bloop bloop bloop (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/spanjews.pdf)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The fuck are talking about? Even despite the Soviets trying dismantle the Church, 90% of my countrymen still identify as Orthodox. This is in spite of a long history of suppression, humiliation of the religious, state atheism, atheism being taught in schools, reeducation facilities and so on.

"90% of your countrymen still identify as Orthodox" (of which only a certain portion are actively religious) after the counter-revolution in the nineties. I was also born in a former workers' state, and I can assure you that here a lot of Catholics were spontaneously generated by the changing political circumstances. Prior to the dissolution of the workers' state in Yugoslavia, religion wasn't simply a non-factor, it was almost universally despised. And this is not due to e-e-evil communists trying to "suppress religion", but the raw hatred of the workers toward the priests, particularly after WWII.

And pray tell, how did the Soviets try to "dismantle" the Orthodox Church? By treating it as any other religious corporation? By shooting whiteguard priests? By trying to sell some of the religious gold etc. in the middle of a famine? What horror.


You're making the assumption that more education and less formal religious instruction equates to alleged decrease in religiosity. Would you care to extol the accomplishments of Pitești incident in this respect?

No, I don't think we can really trust a story that started circulating during a scuffle between Romanian Stalinists, and was later taken up by the anti-communist generals, and which in any case seems to have concerned a few Iron Guard scum.


Thought my clarification was sufficient but you're still not understanding me. Idunno.

I was making a broader point, not connected with you personally.


Which aren't inherent to any religion and often violate said creed of the religion which them are doing in its name. Sure there are some negative aspects of what we know as 'religion' but these are more social, cultural, ideological and political problems ties with religious expression. Which is to say, change said material conditions and you can eliminate those problems but religion itself isn't the problem or a problem or a lack of education or an intellectual impairment and it is for these reasons critiques of religion stemming from this fall flat on their face.

They don't "often violate said creed of the religion" - all of the major religions are explicitly misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic. Quite a few of them are ethnic-chauvinist as well, depending on the historic circumstances. And yes, material conditions are responsible for such behaviour - this is elementary. But material conditions aren't some kind of sorcery that acts independently of humans. Humans act like misogynists, etc. - and religion is an ideological reflection of such behaviour.


here is some stuff (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Islam)

and here (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism)

and here (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology)

getting tired yet? (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_who_fought_against_the_real_fascists/0010741)

bloop bloop bloop (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/spanjews.pdf)

As I said, liberation theology is paternalistic liberalism, "Christian anarchists" and so on are an irrelevant sect, to be perfectly frank, and simply fighting fascism doesn't make one a socialist, otherwise Roosevelt would be a socialist.

[Redhead]

Religion itself as a faith should be allowed, but not state/publicly supported. It also seems, at least in high developt countries that the amount of religious people decreases every year.

[Non-Aligned]

Live and let live, if people want religion that is their choice, not a choice for the state to make for the people.

[Rafiq]

In primitive communism, people did not have organised religion or even vague spiritual beliefs. They were apatheists. This suggests that the origin of religion as explaining what could not be understood without science is not the whole picture, and as Marxists the element of class would be a large suspect.


I find this rather intriguing - could you perhaps provide a source? Not that I doubt you, but it is something which I think is worth remembering.

[Rafiq]

The fuck are talking about? Even despite the Soviets trying dismantle the Church, 90% of my countrymen still identify as Orthodox. This is in spite of a long history of suppression, humiliation of the religious, state atheism, atheism being taught in schools, reeducation facilities and so on. You're making the assumption that more education and less formal religious instruction equates to alleged decrease in religiosity. Would you care to extol the accomplishments of Pitești incident in this respect?


You do realize that religious indoctrination has been a keystone factor in the revival of religious beliefs in Russia, right? It's been almost three decades since the fall of the Soviet Union, and it's been much more since the rehabilitation of the Russian Orthodox Church. I think I remember seeing about a decade ago the Russian Orthodox population in Russia being around 20%, actually, and non-religious or non practicing citizens compromising 40% of the population. Oh and today, 75%, not 90% of Russian citizens identify as Russian Orthodox.

The anti-religious campaigns in the Soviet Union were astronomically successful, what was not successful was the endurance of the Soviet State itself, however. Gradual degeneration and economic, political decline also prompted citizens to adopt a wide array of strange and mystical religious beliefs in the 1980's as well.

It's undeniable that more education leads to a decrease in religiosity. In Communist countries, only during the time period of their decline or gradual demise (i.e. Like the late 70's Yugoslavia) was religiosity rehabilitated - along with viciously chauvinistic nationalist sentiments and other such reactionary ideas.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/02/russia-1.png

So at 1991, 60% of Russian citizens were unaffiliated with any religion. Get your shit straight, Vox.

[bropasaran]

Most people are religious just formally and as a custom. They can consider those customs important, but as a rule people really have no clue about historical, theological or ethical details of their religion. That attitute could explain the census numbers concerning religion in ex-bolshevik states.

My opinion is that this kind of attitude of superficiality is a tendency of human behavior in general, not just concerning religion.

[Chomskyan]

Religion is found in every human culture since time immemorial, it's a human thing, not a class thing.

@Rafiq, actually the Soviet Union itself near the end of it's era, encouraged the revival of the Orthodox Church in Russia. So it wasn't all indoctrination. I wish I could provide evidence, but it's been a while since I saw the article about this topic. From my recollection, it was connected with one of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchs.

[Rafiq]

Religion is found in every human culture since time immemorial, it's a human thing, not a class thing.

@Rafiq, actually the Soviet Union itself near the end of it's era, encouraged the revival of the Orthodox Church in Russia. So it wasn't all indoctrination. I wish I could provide evidence, but it's been a while since I saw the article about this topic. From my recollection, it was connected with one of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchs.

Yes, and the kprf today is in bed with them. What's your point? Yes it is indoctrination. Other reactionary entities were given heed toward the Soviet Unions end, too. Or are neo Nazis also a "human thing". Frankly your logic is revolting.

Your argument is ridiculous. Class society has coincided with every human culture too - are classes also a "human thing"? Who cares if it is a "human thing" (genocide, slavery and war are too). Care to provide examples of a non "human thing"? Because it is so prevalent in all histories, this doesn't mean it has transhistorical implications. Religion is irrevocably tied to class society and in all cultures by which religion exists, we can trace and identify the social character of these religions and how specifically it reproduced the existed order. Or all the variations in these religions just "based on the development of pure thought"?

Is the absence of automobiles a "human thing" if we were talking in 1700? Or are there real factors and reasons as to why automobiles did not exist, other than "it's a human thing". This is precisely why Chomskys empiricism is laughable garbage.

[Cosmonaut]

Religion should be just left to individuals themselves. If they want to get together with people of the same religion as them and talk about it, that is fine. Just don't force it on them. This, coming from a person who supports a theocracy, but it doesn't make it any less true.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

I don't think it's a question of allowing religion. I feel like socialism and communism will remove the need for religion. Like the state, it will wither away in obsolesence.