Religion in socialism

[TrotskyMyHero]

I know religion is viewed as a capitalist tool to enslave proletariat, but do the faithful have to be socialism's ennemies ? Islam, for example, is based on donation and is not necessarily opposed to socialism, I have a muslim friend who is also a libertarian marxist. I am not aware of other religons' doctrines so I can't say if they're compatible with socialism, but I'm almost sure for Islam. So, what's your opinion about religion's place after a revolution ?

[Wht.Rex]

All religions are similar actually to classic communist principles. Many say that Jesus, Buddha and other figures of religions were "proto"-communists.

There is nothing wrong with religion. With time it just became as tool to control society. As always, I compare how it was in Soviet Union. Religion was not forbidden in USSR, as long it does not make way to brainwash society and get on state levels. Every person could worship whatever they wanted, it was all about faith, but as I said - as long you don't wave it around in public.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I know religion is viewed as a capitalist tool to enslave proletariat, but do the faithful have to be socialism's ennemies ? Islam, for example, is based on donation and is not necessarily opposed to socialism, I have a muslim friend who is also a libertarian marxist. I am not aware of other religons' doctrines so I can't say if they're compatible with socialism, but I'm almost sure for Islam. So, what's your opinion about religion's place after a revolution ?

Marxism implies materialism, something religious people reject by supposition. Of course, we don't imagine we can ban religion by ukaz. Religion will wither away as the material conditions for religion die out. In the meantime, the proletarian dictatorship will not permit any citizen to be adversely affected by religious backwardness, but if people want to believe in gods or Bodhisattvas, whatever.

I would think socialism - which among other things means the end of the family and the complete liberation of women, gay and trans* people - is not compatible with Islam, or any other religion. Paternalism, charity and so on are not socialism - they are in fact the very opposite of workers controlling the means of production.

[G4b3n]

I don't think religion is fundamentally opposed to socialism. However, it is fundamentally opposed to the Marxist means of analysis which is one of, if not the most prominent tool for bringing about socialism, so there in lies the problem. I believe it is a matter of how Marxists wish to go about the situation, the right wing sect of the Marxists will wish to smash it with state force while left leaning Marxists would rather let it be and hope to see religion die naturally as a result of changing material conditions. I believe the experiences of the former should put us in favor of the latter.

[Illegalitarian]

I don't think that we must necessarily get rid of religion for a communist society to arise, as if the two cannot exist in the same world.

I do think that by the time the capitalist mode of production is gone, however, religion will either be radically different than it is now, or perhaps largely a thing of the past entirely. Already atheism/agnosticism/"secularism" is the fastest growing "religious" identification, I don't see that changing any time soon

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think it's foolish to speak of the wholesale demise of human spirituality and the mystical attitude, but clearly religious institutions hold problematic views about how politics must be done or the ends which we must serve, and that religion as a metaphysically grounded ideal can't pose an answer in itself to our material problems.

[Rad]

There won't be a conscious choice either way. The fate of religion will be determined by history, not by man. If man makes a conscious choice to protect or destroy religion, it will backfire. Soviet Union tried to suppress religion ... and now religion is very popular in Russia. Why? Because history wasn't on their side.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If "religion is the opiate of the masses", then getting rid of the opiate without curing the disease is not something on which revolutionaries should focus. 870 was mostly right.

Deism doesn't seem inherently problematic, but theistic beliefs in a deity or deities passing down "divine commands" which perpetuate or embody backward cultural ideology (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc.) would certainly pose a problem for a revolution. That said, religions may be conservative institutions but they are not static. Certain historical conditions at certain times and places brought about different sects of Christianity, for example, which might approach social issues differently. So religious belief is adaptable and is perhaps not some abstract ideological barrier, although its opposition to materialism means it will be extremely challenged by a class-conscious proletarian movement. Even within capitalism we see religious belief on the decline in some places (if I'm not mistaken), so the removal of quasi-religious nationalism and other such 'fetishes' will only challenge it further.

In my humble opinion, "Even if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him", but trying to punish people into disbelief is not an effective approach for abolishing religion, nor is imposing atheism 'from above' compatible with socialism. That kind of imposition defeats the purpose of attacking religion from a materialist perspective to begin with because it implies a higher authority rather than a common-sense, spontaneously-embraced atheism.

I may have jumped around a lot there, but in short, 870 was right, although if religion is suppressed, I wouldn't support that being done by a vanguard party, nor (and I know he didn't suggest this) through some Crusade to eradicate religion with gunfire. I don't expect that would go any better than it has up to this point in history.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

As others have stated, religion is something that will wither away once the material conditions that cause its popularity are abolished. As Marx said, religion is the opiate of the people. Not opiate in the sense of some sort of hallucinatory drug, or some sort of addictive substance like heroine, but in the medical sense. Opium is not a cure for anything, but it is one hell of a pain killer.

In fact, we can already see some of this withering of religion in our own time. In the Norse and Scandinavian countries, for example. They by and large have one of the highest qualities of life in the world, with a strong welfare state, free education and healthcare, mostly liberal social mores, etc. It's still a bourgeois capitalist state, of course, but as far as social democracies go its been pretty successful.

And the result? The Scandinavian and Norse countries have perhaps the lowest levels of religiosity of the world. Since many of the necessities are already taken care of, few if any of them see the need for religion. Hell, some of these countries have State Churches, and they STILL tend to ignore religion.

(They do still have problems with suicide, however)

[The Intransigent Faction]

As Marx said, religion is the opiate of the people. Not opiate in the sense of some sort of hallucinatory drug, or some sort of addictive substance like heroine, but in the medical sense.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, nor does there seem to be any indication that he meant them to be.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Any successful movement to bring about communism will include religious people in its ranks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Shoot the Priests. Burn down the churches.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think it's foolish to speak of the wholesale demise of human spirituality and the mystical attitude...

Why? The Melanesians, for example, certainly seem to be without spirituality and the mystical attitude. For that matter, the early Romans were of this mindset as well. Spirituality, whatever that means, and mysticism, are part of class society, not some timeless forms.

[Zanthorus]

Marx wrote a lot more about religion than just the 'opiate' quote, it would be interesting if so-called Marxists actually discussed any of that for once rather than trying to over interpret one sentence.

[Leo]

I think this is a particularly difficult issue which requires a little bit of tactfulness.

Communism is fundamentally opposed to religion since it strives for an entirely different sort of consciousness and I personally can't imagine a communist future where religion has endured. Since communism also is 'the real movement which abolishes the present state of things', and based on the previous revolutionary experiences of the proletariat, we can expect a growing conflict between a possible rising proletarian revolution and the organized religions of the world. Certainly the proletariat can not tolerate these institutions and will have to dismantle them as they are. Their property will be confiscated and certainly some priests will be dealt with force though not for being priests but for being counter-revolutionaries. I am categorically against burning buildings which can be put to good use however.

This being said, I don't think religion can or will be abolished automatically with the revolution. It is one of these things which gets stronger when it is suppressed and besides, a significant portion of the workers who've conducted the revolution will still be religious the majority of whom, I would guess, will remain so for the rest of their lives. I don't think it will die out with the next couple of generations after the revolution and may even continue into later though in dramatically smaller numbers.

So the question becomes one of religious policy under the dictatorship of the proletariat. I don't have ready made answers however since it is not wise to suppress religion, there will need to be some sort of control over it. This would include:

1. Those performing religious services also working as a part of the communal production. The existance of clergy as a separate and independent class can't be tolerated. I don't think the proletarian dictatorship can have the peasantry and other non-exploiting strata have its own members providing religious services either.

2. Religion can't be against patriarchy as it is inherently patriarchal however it can't be allowed to boost homophobia, sexism and the remaining family structures and gender roles in the world. In other words it can not preach against the communist measures aiming the dismantling of the family and patriarchy. I emphasize this specifically because of the closeness of religion and the family.

3. Similarly, promotion of any sort of sectarianism and religious violence towards atheists or adherents of other religions can't be tolerated.

4. Fundamentally the proletarian dictatorship can not tolerate religion preaching against itself, for capitalism or any form of exploitation. Workers performing religious services can, of course, voice all their criticisms within the workers councils. Religion in general should be discouraged from engaging in political life although this is not going to be entirely possible since I expect plenty of the workers who will volunteer to perform religious services will want to preach religious anti-capitalism.

On questions of cosmology and philosophy, I would say religion should enjoy a greater freedom than it has ever enjoyed in its existance. The proletarian dictatorship has nothing to lose and everything to gain from allowing and in fact actively promoting a completely open debate between religion, science and philosophy as well as a scientific, philosophical and even an artistic debate about religion itself. This would, of course, be the ultimate challange for religion: if it can survive this debate, it can survive into communism. Being a historical materialist, my hypothesis is that it can't survive once it loses its unquestionable, dogmatic aura. I'm confident enough in this hypothesis to be able to give religion a chance to prove me wrong and in any case I don't think it is possible to abolish religion without such a public debate anyway.

[Hit The North]

We have to treat religion historically and locally. It is true that religion in class society is generally (but not exclusively) used to divide and control people, rather than unite and liberate them. As we well know from history and our own time, where religion comes to play a decisive role in political affairs, it is mostly reactionary and repressive. However, the excesses of capitalist civilisation are an anathema to most organised religions. Even the ultra-moderate Church of England in Britain manages to put up a more damaging critique of capitalist greed, than the British Labour Party. So it is likely that some sections of the religious institutions will side with the workers in a revolutionary situation. However, generally, from the point of view of a sentimental humanism, they will act as a break on revolutionary activity. But whether and how much their influence should be opposed by socialists will depend on the historical and local context.

[Leo]

I think it is quite naive to expect any help from any section of religious institutions. Organized religion always sides with the ruling class. The reason the Church of England in Britain makes moderate criticisms of greed does not mean it is a friend of the workers: it is not. The only reason it might be vaguely appealing to such sentiments, which themselves aren't against capitalism anyway, is because it is, as far as I know, a miniscule institution with a tiny following. The biggest practiced religion in England today is Islam.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why? The Melanesians, for example, certainly seem to be without spirituality and the mystical attitude. For that matter, the early Romans were of this mindset as well. Spirituality, whatever that means, and mysticism, are part of class society, not some timeless forms.

As far as I know, Melanesians and early Romans did have some kind of spiritual practices. Melanesians today certainly seem spiritual enough. I know some ex-missionaries who might be interested to confirm or deny the utter lack of spirituality in Melanesia. I think you are right to a point that there are less "spiritual" societies out there but I think you overstate the case to say those societies are "without" it.

Of course "spirituality" and "mysticism" manifest themselves in class society. Everything does. That does not make their very existence dependent on a particular form of class society. Nor was my point that such attitudes are an eternal part of the human experience, but that we have no reason to think that they will ever just vanish, considering the fact that these kinds of practices have been with us since we were shitting in caves and wanted to know what all that meant.


I think it is quite naive to expect any help from any section of religious institutions. Organized religion always sides with the ruling class. The reason the Church of England in Britain makes moderate criticisms of greed does not mean it is a friend of the workers: it is not. The only reason it might be vaguely appealing to such sentiments, which themselves aren't against capitalism anyway, is because it is, as far as I know, a miniscule institution with a tiny following. The biggest practiced religion in England today is Islam.

What form will religion take if the Proletariat is the ruling class? Will its content and institutions not change at all? The problem with asking what religion would look like without a ruling class is that it's not a phenomenon we've ever come across.


2. Religion can't be against patriarchy as it is inherently patriarchal however it can't be allowed to boost homophobia, sexism and the remaining family structures and gender roles in the world. In other words it can not preach against the communist measures aiming the dismantling of the family and patriarchy. I emphasize this specifically because of the closeness of religion and the family.Is religion essentially patriarchal, or is it patriarchal because it has largely emerged and been sustained within patriarchal cultures?


On questions of cosmology and philosophy, I would say religion should enjoy a greater freedom than it has ever enjoyed in its existance. The proletarian dictatorship has nothing to lose and everything to gain from allowing and in fact actively promoting a completely open debate between religion, science and philosophy as well as a scientific, philosophical and even an artistic debate about religion itself. This would, of course, be the ultimate challange for religion: if it can survive this debate, it can survive into communism. Being a historical materialist, my hypothesis is that it can't survive once it loses its unquestionable, dogmatic aura. I'm confident enough in this hypothesis to be able to give religion a chance to prove me wrong and in any case I don't think it is possible to abolish religion without such a public debate anyway. That is by far the most reasonable and intellectually honest critical attitude to religion I've seen.


Marx wrote a lot more about religion than just the 'opiate' quote, it would be interesting if so-called Marxists actually discussed any of that for once rather than trying to over interpret one sentence. Yes, but even the Opium quote has great stuff around it - the "heart of a heartless world" sounds a hell of a lot better than Opium. It does make one think of how the kinds of problems and pains which drive people to religion would fade away. If one wants religion to have a minimal role in society, or for it to vanish altogether, the only way would be to solve these nagging problems. Not to sound too sentimental, but to build a society and a world with a heart is a far better way of mitigating the harms of religion than what Mao's Red Guard did.

[TrotskyMyHero]

left leaning Marxists would rather let it be and hope to see religion die naturally as a result of changing material conditions.

I agree with it


As others have stated, religion is something that will wither away once the material conditions that cause its popularity are abolished.
In fact, we can already see some of this withering of religion in our own time. In the Norse and Scandinavian countries, for example. They by and large have one of the highest qualities of life in the world, with a strong welfare state, free education and healthcare, mostly liberal social mores, etc. It's still a bourgeois capitalist state, of course, but as far as social democracies go its been pretty successful.
And the result? The Scandinavian and Norse countries have perhaps the lowest levels of religiosity of the world. Since many of the necessities are already taken care of, few if any of them see the need for religion. Hell, some of these countries have State Churches, and they STILL tend to ignore religion.

True


Marxism implies materialism, something religious people reject by supposition.

What do you mean ?


I would think socialism - which among other things means the end of the family and the complete liberation of women, gay and trans* people - is not compatible with Islam, or any other religion.

I think this makes socialism incompatible only with religious extremism, which tries to make everyone follow their beliefs, but most faithful (at least most of the ones I know) just don't care about gay and trans people, and are against the oppression of women in religion. Indeed, it's all about their interpretation of the holy texts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As far as I know, Melanesians and early Romans did have some kind of spiritual practices. Melanesians today certainly seem spiritual enough.

I wouldn't say so. Both the Melanesian and the Roman attitude are instrumental. The Roman felt to emotional connection to numina and the Melanesian felt none to the various forces which he supposed operate in the world.


Of course "spirituality" and "mysticism" manifest themselves in class society. Everything does. That does not make their very existence dependent on a particular form of class society. Nor was my point that such attitudes are an eternal part of the human experience, but that we have no reason to think that they will ever just vanish, considering the fact that these kinds of practices have been with us since we were shitting in caves and wanted to know what all that meant.

But that's precisely my point; the claim that people "wanted to know what all that meant" is an unwarranted projection of current ideas into the past (and then into the future if you claim people in socialism will concern themselves with such an ill-defined question). The Roman, again, attached no universal significance to the existence of numina or the various sorts of spirits. They existed - so the Roman thought, just as we think nuclei exist (and I would hazard a guess that we are right and the Romans wrong). But no one goes looking for spiritual significance in nuclei.


Is religion essentially patriarchal, or is it patriarchal because it has largely emerged and been sustained within patriarchal cultures?

I don't think it's important if religion is "essentially" patriarchal. It is patriarchal, and that is unlikely to change.

[consuming negativity]

The biggest practiced religion in England today is Islam.

this sounds like complete and total unsubstantiated BNP/UKIP horse shit

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

this sounds like complete and total unsubstantiated BNP/UKIP horse shit

Or maybe the attendance rate for nominal Christians in the UK has been dropping steadily over the last few decades.

[Leo]

What form will religion take if the Proletariat is the ruling class? Will its content and institutions not change at all? The problem with asking what religion would look like without a ruling class is that it's not a phenomenon we've ever come across.

As I said, I don't think that the proletarian revolution can tolerate organized religion. All the old religious institutions I would imagine will be destroyed along with the state itself.

As for what religion would look like when the proletariat is the ruling class, obviously we don't know. I think it would have make up for a better discussion if it was much more sophisticated than it currently is, more in the lines of the likes of people like the Arians and the Donatists, Mazdak, Abu'darr, Alfarabius, Avicenna, Rumi, Maimonedes, Bruno, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, the Diggers, the Levellers, Thomas Muntzer, Shiekh Bedreddin etc. I'm unfortunately not as knowledgeable in Hindu and Chinese religions to provide similar examples but I have little doubt of their existance.


Is religion essentially patriarchal, or is it patriarchal because it has largely emerged and been sustained within patriarchal cultures?

I'd say the emergence of religion as an institution is very closely bound with emergence of morality, laws, the family and property so yes I do see something essentially patriarchal to it. When it evolves into a sort of cosmic mysticism in the form of panentheism or pantheism it has in some individual cases managed to partially rid itself of this however we have to understand that this is by itself a process riddled with contradictions at every step with what is at the heart of religious belief, the books, the dogmas.


this sounds like complete and total unsubstantiated BNP/UKIP horse shit

Congratulations, you have just accused a Kurd living in Turkey of British ultra-nationalism.

In any case, according to the BBC: "Average Sunday attendance in the Church of England was 960,000 in 2008, a figure which has been falling for a number of years." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12507319

There are nearly three million Muslims in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics) and based on my empirical knowledge, I think it is pretty safe to assume that more than half of them attend the Friday prayer.

In anything this shows that religion is well on its way out of the Western European societies. I don't see anything negative here.

[Loony Le Fist]

Religion doesn't really matter as much as how it's spun. Christianity can be seen as a tool for liberation from unjust political or economic conditions, as Liberation Theology sees it. It can also be used as a tool by the elites to maintain the existing social order, ensure that teen pregnancy rates continue to rise, and preserve political and economic control--as is the case in the US. It all depends on who wields it.

Religion as we know it today should have a very limited place in future societies. Currently, I find it to be a bit of a scourge, since some people have adapted it (as many a scribe has altered scripture) to fit our slightly less barbaric contemporary ethics and therefore giving the nuts some moderates hide behind.

Furthermore, every theist I know pretends to know more about indescribable things than I do. How is that justifiable? It is impossible to know anything about indescribable things. One cannot know anything about something which is by definition impossible to describe. It is contradictory philosophically let alone in reality. But I digress.

Despite my own rather anti-religious views, I can't really justify banning the practice of religious beliefs that do not involve things like animal or human sacrifice or which cause other people harm. Scientific studies have suggested that theists have less trouble dealing with contradictory beliefs. While this can be useful in many emotional and life contexts, it's not useful when dealing with logical argument and persuasion. I can see how it might provide a certain psychological defense against having to deal with the harshness of reality. I think this is a good reason of why they can be nice people and simultaneously believe and express some pretty hideous things.

At least part of the solution would be making it clear that religion is an impediment in certain contexts and so shouldn't be involved in the decision making processes for society at large. That shouldn't be taboo.

Religion might somehow be useful in say giving a scared young child strength as they are being brought under anesthesia prior to a heart transplant, but I value much more that the doctor and anesthesiologist rely on their understanding and confidence in evidence based medicine and that they have a crack team. It is the only thing we can rationally count on to produce results. No prayer is going to compensate for objective reality.

[consuming negativity]

Or maybe the attendance rate for nominal Christians in the UK has been dropping steadily over the last few decades.


Congratulations, you have just accused a Kurd living in Turkey of British ultra-nationalism.

In any case, according to the BBC: "Average Sunday attendance in the Church of England was 960,000 in 2008, a figure which has been falling for a number of years." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12507319

There are nearly three million Muslims in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics) and based on my empirical knowledge, I think it is pretty safe to assume that more than half of them attend the Friday prayer.

In anything this shows that religion is well on its way out of the Western European societies. I don't see anything negative here.

It's a good thing that I didn't say what you said I said, and that what I actually did was make an observational opinion about what you said. And, of course, I was completely right: You can't prove your "statistic", it is based on conjecture, it is incredibly misleading, and it requires an awful re-definition of the word "practicing". The exact sort of ridiculous garbage that the BNP or UKIP would produce but to serve different ends. Congratulations.

[SonofRage]

In my view, the biggest problem with religion is looking at supernatural causes for what happens in the world. I think some religions can let this go better than others. For example, Buddhism can a whole system of practices and philosophy that don't lose their efficacy if the supernatural elements are dropped.

There are also these, strangely, atheist Christians, that follow the moral teachings but view Jesus as being a wisdom teacher and not a god.

I think if the supernatural bits are dropped a lot of the oppressive bits are easier to drop as well.

[Leo]

It's a good thing that I didn't say what you said I said, and that what I actually did was make an observational opinion about what you said. And, of course, I was completely right: You can't prove your "statistic", it is based on conjecture, it is incredibly misleading, and it requires an awful re-definition of the word "practicing". The exact sort of ridiculous garbage that the BNP or UKIP would produce but to serve different ends. Congratulations.

I think it's quite reasonable to measure the number of people practicing a religion by the average number of attendees in its routine religious ceremonies. If you have an ability to read minds then by all means lets see your statistics.

Dismissing other people's statistics without providing any of your own, and doing that like such an obnoxious wanker isn't really adding anything to the debate, is it?

[consuming negativity]

What you're actually measuring is attendance of religious services, not practicing persons. You can be practicing and yet not go to ceremonies as much. It's not being obnoxious, it's being critical. Don't make such misleading, ridiculous statements if you don't want to have to defend them. The social science field, much like the hard science field, is filled with this misleading garbage.

[Tim Cornelis]

Congratulations, you have just accused a Kurd living in Turkey of British ultra-nationalism.

In any case, according to the BBC: "Average Sunday attendance in the Church of England was 960,000 in 2008, a figure which has been falling for a number of years." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12507319

There are nearly three million Muslims in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics) and based on my empirical knowledge, I think it is pretty safe to assume that more than half of them attend the Friday prayer.

In anything this shows that religion is well on its way out of the Western European societies. I don't see anything negative here.


Why not look up attendance of British muslims instead of relying on anecdotal evidence? "based on my empirical [sic!] knowledge" but is that the knowledge of a Kurd in Turkey, or have you lived in the UK? Anyway, anecdotal evidence is not a substitute for data. I'd say many Western people in this are misdirected by their urban experience. In the average class I was in there were 5 muslims versus 0/1 christian, but Christians outnumber everyone else in (particular) rural areas.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/39225/More-attending-mosques-than-Mass-by-2020

"The number of Muslims attending prayers will reach at least 683,000 by 2020, while the number attending weekly Mass will drop to 679,000."

[Црвена]

An individual who is religious in a communist society (though, as many people have said, why would they be?) will be free to be that way. An individual who is religious in a communist society who starts yelling about how the nuclear family is sacred and women should marry their rapists and they have supreme authority because God chose them will not.

[Leo]

Actually, Tim Cornelis, your source itself says: "But 51 per cent of the Muslims quizzed in the 2001 census said they prayed every day", verifying exactly my assumption. Their data, this news article being from 2008, is from earlier when the Muslim population in England was 1,6 million and it has increased by more than one million according to the 2011 census quoted on wikipedia.

I don't know how they pulled that number you quote but it contradicts their actual data.


"based on my empirical [sic!] knowledge" but is that the knowledge of a Kurd in Turkey, or have you lived in the UK? Anyway, anecdotal evidence is not a substitute for data.

No, you're correct of course, thank you for backing up my anecdotal evidence with the data. I haven't lived in the UK although I have lived abroad. I obviously understand what Islam is better though - I'm not saying someone who isn't from a culturally Muslim background can't understand Islam, I'm simply saying I was acquinted with it more. Which is probably why my assumption proved correct.


What you're actually measuring is attendance of religious services, not practicing persons. You can be practicing and yet not go to ceremonies as much.

I'd saying going to ceremonies is a defining, core aspect of religious practices. In fact it's impossible to think of religion as anything but a social force and ceremony is what unites the religious community, the main element that makes it a social force. You can argue that it is possible to be religious without attending ceremonies, without practicing that is, but even then, by the standards of religion that person is not a true believer.

I'll give an example: I've met Muslims who drink alcohol and don't attend prayer, I've met Muslims who don't drink and who don't attend prayer, I've even met Muslims who drink as well as attend prayer but I've never met a Muslim who didn't drink for religious reasons and never went to prayer.


It's not being obnoxious, it's being critical. Don't make such misleading, ridiculous statements if you don't want to have to defend them. The social science field, much like the hard science field, is filled with this misleading garbage.

The only sentence you made with any substance was the one above, which by itself would have been quite fair. In everything else, you're still being an obnoxious wanker and a snob.

[David Warner]

I know religion is viewed as a capitalist tool to enslave proletariat, but do the faithful have to be socialism's ennemies ? Islam, for example, is based on donation and is not necessarily opposed to socialism, I have a muslim friend who is also a libertarian marxist. I am not aware of other religons' doctrines so I can't say if they're compatible with socialism, but I'm almost sure for Islam. So, what's your opinion about religion's place after a revolution ?

A "Libertarian Marxist Muslim". :laugh:

Religious people cannot be communists -- since they cannot believe in the materialist conception of history. That doesn't make them enemies, no. Religion exists under certain material conditions (most notably, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and will slowly cease to exist as the proletariat re-organizes society in its own interest and as the productive forces expand (resulting in widespread literacy, education, a scientific understanding of the world, etc.)

[Alexander11]

Several replys to this thread have said something along the lines of 'religion should fade away as material conditions change.' Am I right in thinking then, that by 'change' what is meant is 'improve'?
The underlying assumption being that we invented gods and religious systems to aide us in our suffering, to give us something to cry out to when material conditions were unfavorable, and under a socialist society in which material needs are met, people will gradually forget about God.
If I have represented the assumption correctly, I have to disagree. I believe people are inherently spiritual, that a belief in the divine has existed in both feast and famine, and to look for its extinction after man's material needs have been met is silly, to inforce or encourage people to leave behind their faith is to ask many to leave behind a unique facet of what makes us human.
I'm not certain where this war between spirituality and communism began. It's true that capitalism has infected powerful religious institutions just has it has many other aspects of our societies. But I see no natural animosity between theism and socialism, in fact, as it was mentioned above, many of the worlds greatest religions were founded by leaders with decidedly socialist tendencies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Several replys to this thread have said something along the lines of 'religion should fade away as material conditions change.' Am I right in thinking then, that by 'change' what is meant is 'improve'?
The underlying assumption being that we invented gods and religious systems to aide us in our suffering, to give us something to cry out to when material conditions were unfavorable, and under a socialist society in which material needs are met, people will gradually forget about God.
If I have represented the assumption correctly, I have to disagree. I believe people are inherently spiritual, that a belief in the divine has existed in both feast and famine, and to look for its extinction after man's material needs have been met is silly, to inforce or encourage people to leave behind their faith is to ask many to leave behind a unique facet of what makes us human.
I'm not certain where this war between spirituality and communism began. It's true that capitalism has infected powerful religious institutions just has it has many other aspects of our societies. But I see no natural animosity between theism and socialism, in fact, as it was mentioned above, many of the worlds greatest religions were founded by leaders with decidedly socialist tendencies.

Paternalism and authoritarian communalism are not "socialist tendencies"; they're right-wing tendencies if anything. And capitalism hasn't "infected" religion; rather, religion is used, as it has always been, to prop up the rule of an obsolete, reactionary class. Socialism will mean the end of religion as religion is part of class society, connected to the rule of one class over the other, and in modern capitalist society to the preservation of the family and a vicious anti-rationalist backlash.

[Christian Insurrectionist]

here are also these, strangely, atheist Christians, that follow the moral teachings but view Jesus as being a wisdom teacher and not a god.

Um... wat? Christian atheist speaking. Maybe some might see Jesus as a simple wisdom teacher, but Christian atheism as a whole has a wide variety of Christological perspectives. I'd definitely would call Jesus, God, but I'd also say that God is dead and the whole point of Christianity in our world come to age is to suffer with God and without God in a godless world. This is a significantly different position than your standard atheism.

You might find this useful:


The phrase "death of God’’ has quite properly become a watchword, a stumbling-block, and something of a test in radical theology, which itself is a theological expression of a contemporary Christian affirmation of the death of God. Radical theology thus best interprets itself when it begins to say what it means by that phrase. The task of clarifying the possible meanings of the phrase, "death of God," is scarcely begun in the essays of this volume, but no student of Nietzsche will be surprised at this inconclusiveness, recalling the widely different interpretations Nietzsche’s proclamation of the death of God has received in the twentieth century. Nor should the phrase "death of God" be linked to Nietzsche alone, for in one way or another it lies at the foundation of a distinctly modern thought and experience.

Perhaps the category of "event’’ will prove to be the most useful answer to the recurring question, "Just what does ‘death of God’ refer to?" But not even this specification sufficiently 1. That there is no God and that there never has been. This position is traditional atheism of the old-fashioned kind, and it does seem hard to see how it could be combined, except very unstably, with Christianity or any of the Western religions.

2. That there once was a God to whom adoration, praise and trust were appropriate, possible,and even necessary, but that now there is no such God. This is the position of the death of God or radical theology. It is an atheist position, but with a difference. If there was a God, and if there now isn’t, it should be possible to indicate why this change took place, when it took place, and who was responsible for it.

3. That the idea of God and the word God itself are in need of radical reformulation. Perhaps totally new words are needed; perhaps a decent silence about God should be observed; but ultimately, a new treatment of the idea and the word can be expected, however unexpected and surprising it may turn out to be.

4. That our traditional liturgical and theological language needs a thorough overhaul; the reality abides, but classical modes of thought and forms of language may well have had it.

5. That the Christian story is no longer a saving or a healing story. It may manage to stay on as merely illuminating or instructing or guiding, but it no longer performs its classical functions of salvation or redemption. In this new form, it might help us cope with the demons, but it cannot abolish them.

6. That certain concepts of God, often in the past confused with the classical Christian doctrine of God, must be destroyed: for example, God as problem solver, absolute power, necessary being, the object of ultimate concern.

7. That men do not today experience God except as hidden, absent, silent. We live, so to speak, in the time of the death of God, though that time will doubtless pass.

8. That the gods men make, in their thought and action (false gods or idols, in other words), must always die so that the true object of thought and action, the true God, might emerge, come to life, be born anew.

9. That of a mystical meaning: God must die in the world so that he can be born in us. In many forms of mysticism the death of Jesus on the cross is the time of that worldly death. This is a medieval idea that influenced Martin Luther, and it is probably this complex of ideas that lies behind the German chorale "God Himself is Dead" that may well be the historical source for our modern use of "death of God."

10. Finally, that our language about God is always inadequate and imperfect.


tl;dr Christian atheism is a spectrum that ranges from traditional atheism to apophatic mysticism.

[Thirsty Crow]

All religions are similar actually to classic communist principles. Many say that Jesus, Buddha and other figures of religions were "proto"-communists.

I don't think this is correct. In fact, I'd say that many religions' principles are radically different from communist principles, in that the former includes "outsourcing" the essential creative powers of mankind into some mystical realms whereas communism is based on the clear understanding of both these powers and the way they are manifest in social life, on one hand, and of possibilities for a completely different way of social organization on the other.

[RedSunrise]

I don't think this is correct. In fact, I'd say that many religions' principles are radically different from communist principles, in that the former includes "outsourcing" the essential creative powers of mankind into some mystical realms whereas communism is based on the clear understanding of both these powers and the way they are manifest in social life, on one hand, and of possibilities for a completely different way of social organization on the other.

I keep seeing similar things popping up in other discussions/posts too. Since this is the learning section, can I see some elaboration? Perhaps citations? I'm confused as to where we are pulling these ideas. This is similar to the "religion is patriarchy" strain that ran around some text earlier in this thread. Where is Christianity (for example) supportive of patriarchy? Christianity is defined by someone who follows the teachings of Jesus (aka CHRIST-believer), while the ideas of patriarchy are aspects of Paul's teachings or the Old Testament. So *Christianity* isn't patriarchal, per se, the people who were in support of patriarchy took Paul to be some deity-man to justify themselves (this was also done with the OT which has little to do with Jesus besides them both being Jewish).

In regards to the "Materialism =/= religion", I recall someone saying how Deism wouldn't be a problem, but theism would. Can't a theist analyze the world in a materialistic fashion? If we were to take Christianity again (I'm sorry for being an American and only knowing Christianity well enough... I don't have the time to read...), couldn't we just say material conditions of society/economy aren't directly altered by god? That all changes are negligible? For example: "give to Caesar what is Caesar, and to god what is god's". Or "I don't ****in care about money, just be good for god" is a possible interpretation? Similar to how Jesus is not against markets, just markets in the temple. Furthermore, the idea of "divine ethics" aren't perfectly anti-Marxism are they? Can't we interpret religious texts to match Marxism? Specifically, I saw a "Christian =/= gay, trans, etc". Those ideas only occur in the OT... Right alongside no tattoos and stoning bad children. Are those Christian teachings? No. Christian = Jesus remember? Are they apart of the Christian Institutions' teachings? Yes. But they are just a form of Christianity (I would say not Christians at all, since they contradict Jesus who is their main focus)

This is not contesting any conclusions, mind you. And I'm very sorry for the poor writing (and likely errors), because I'm currently in bed with an unhealthy dose of sickness. I would just like some clearer explanation in the Learning forum from all you smarter comrades.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I keep seeing similar things popping up in other discussions/posts too. Since this is the learning section, can I see some elaboration? Perhaps citations? I'm confused as to where we are pulling these ideas. This is similar to the "religion is patriarchy" strain that ran around some text earlier in this thread. Where is Christianity (for example) supportive of patriarchy? Christianity is defined by someone who follows the teachings of Jesus (aka CHRIST-believer), while the ideas of patriarchy are aspects of Paul's teachings or the Old Testament. So *Christianity* isn't patriarchal, per se, the people who were in support of patriarchy took Paul to be some deity-man to justify themselves (this was also done with the OT which has little to do with Jesus besides them both being Jewish).

In regards to the "Materialism =/= religion", I recall someone saying how Deism wouldn't be a problem, but theism would. Can't a theist analyze the world in a materialistic fashion? If we were to take Christianity again (I'm sorry for being an American and only knowing Christianity well enough... I don't have the time to read...), couldn't we just say material conditions of society/economy aren't directly altered by god? That all changes are negligible? For example: "give to Caesar what is Caesar, and to god what is god's". Or "I don't ****in care about money, just be good for god" is a possible interpretation? Similar to how Jesus is not against markets, just markets in the temple. Furthermore, the idea of "divine ethics" aren't perfectly anti-Marxism are they? Can't we interpret religious texts to match Marxism? Specifically, I saw a "Christian =/= gay, trans, etc". Those ideas only occur in the OT... Right alongside no tattoos and stoning bad children. Are those Christian teachings? No. Christian = Jesus remember? Are they apart of the Christian Institutions' teachings? Yes. But they are just a form of Christianity (I would say not Christians at all, since they contradict Jesus who is their main focus)

This is not contesting any conclusions, mind you. And I'm very sorry for the poor writing (and likely errors), because I'm currently in bed with an unhealthy dose of sickness. I would just like some clearer explanation in the Learning forum from all you smarter comrades.

Sorry, but you're writing about some fairy-tale Christianity that doesn't exist and never will.

Christianity is anti-materialist. Where does it say that? In the scripture, in other doctrinal documents such as the Catechism of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, decisions of various councils, synods, etc. etc. There is an entire body of doctrinal literature on the subject - none of it supporting the notion that Christianity can be reconciled with materialism. The same goes, of course, for Christianity and gay and trans* liberation - not to mention that communists demand, not just gay and trans* liberation but the end of the family. Good luck trying to reconcile that with any sort of religion.

Religion is what it is, not what people wish it was.

[Thirsty Crow]

I keep seeing similar things popping up in other discussions/posts too. Since this is the learning section, can I see some elaboration? Perhaps citations? I'm confused as to where we are pulling these ideas. This is similar to the "religion is patriarchy" strain that ran around some text earlier in this thread. Where is Christianity (for example) supportive of patriarchy? Christianity is defined by someone who follows the teachings of Jesus (aka CHRIST-believer), while the ideas of patriarchy are aspects of Paul's teachings or the Old Testament. So *Christianity* isn't patriarchal, per se, the people who were in support of patriarchy took Paul to be some deity-man to justify themselves (this was also done with the OT which has little to do with Jesus besides them both being Jewish).

In regards to the "Materialism =/= religion", I recall someone saying how Deism wouldn't be a problem, but theism would. Can't a theist analyze the world in a materialistic fashion? If we were to take Christianity again (I'm sorry for being an American and only knowing Christianity well enough... I don't have the time to read...), couldn't we just say material conditions of society/economy aren't directly altered by god? That all changes are negligible? For example: "give to Caesar what is Caesar, and to god what is god's". Or "I don't ****in care about money, just be good for god" is a possible interpretation? Similar to how Jesus is not against markets, just markets in the temple. Furthermore, the idea of "divine ethics" aren't perfectly anti-Marxism are they? Can't we interpret religious texts to match Marxism? Specifically, I saw a "Christian =/= gay, trans, etc". Those ideas only occur in the OT... Right alongside no tattoos and stoning bad children. Are those Christian teachings? No. Christian = Jesus remember? Are they apart of the Christian Institutions' teachings? Yes. But they are just a form of Christianity (I would say not Christians at all, since they contradict Jesus who is their main focus)

About citation, I can't see how that would be productive. I could offer some relatively brief quotes, but that would amount to an argument from authority by necessity. I can explain what I mean though.

Yes, a religious person, let's say a Christian, indeed can explain and analyze some aspect of the world in a materialist way. How do we know this? Simply because there are working scientists who are religious (I simply don't have the time to pull up research papers, but I think this is common knowledge). So if by "can" you meant is that possible - it is evident and patent that it is.

I'd say that when it comes to understanding the affairs of human beings (social sciences and less rigorous forms of understanding human life), there's a significant probability that religious people will have a much, much harder time consistently investigating it in a materialist fashion. Why? The answer is quite simple, and has to do with the fact that ultimate grounds and foundations, such as God (these are seen as "ultiumate" cause they're transcendent in relation to creation, the everyday material stuff, and moreover as underpinning it in some way), is self-counsciously expelled from the scope of viable investigation, at least by materialists who know what they're talking about (e.g. it is simply impossible, and conceptually incoherent to go about searching for Eldorado or trying to empirically verify the existence of such ultimate "being" as god). But such matters are hot potatoes in thinking about human life - we have a stake in that not so trivial a matter.

As an example, the idea of divine ethics can illuminate this. This is an important matter since we are directly and indirectly affected by how we interact with people; furthermore, this interaction is based on an informal set of rules (called values most commonly) which is disseminated and defended by all sorts of institutions, such as the family and the church (religious community), also the media and so on. Consequently, reasoning about and arguing for a position with respect to this isn't like reasoning about the lenght of cats' mating seasons (for more than one reason), even though people who have cats stand to practically benefit from the latter.

When it comes to the simplest determinations of how this divine morality in relation to Marxist understanding works, I think it needs to be stressed that the two are fundamentally at odds, for at least two reasons.

First, in many manifestations of this divine morality it is clear that the transcendent is claimed to be the only source of moral conduct and moral codes; thus, for instance, consistent Christians regard atheists as people in need for salvation (even if an individuals' conduct is regarded as good). Coming from a completely different place, Marxists first discount any such ultimate ground of moral codes, and proceed to claim that such codes and rules are historical and intimately tied to the prevailing social conditions at certain points in time (of those the conditions of conflict over the material production of life and conditions of labor are judged to be a primary factor). Furthermore, as the second reason I mentioned above, Marxists usually regard religioous practice as a particular social practice which produces a kind of a community, and a community of feeling at that - one which transforms the everyday conditions of toil and pain into mutual heavenly justice and freedom from pain. But as such, this is an illusory community (covering up the fractured and class based social connections with all its effects) and the transformation falls flat. The prevailing conditions are left intact, our social relations as well (but we sing praise together on Sunday, no matter what happens on following Monday).

Another thing is that people claim religious faith but do not consistently practice it - not only by failing to engage in communal ceremonies, but also by failing to consistently live through said codes and beliefs (for instance, there are Catholics I personally know how are de facto heretics since they do not believe that acceptance of Chirst is the sole source of moral conduct). People also claim religious belief due to cultural reasons and so on. The crucial thing here is consistency.

So, no, I don't think it is possible to reconcile religious texts and Marxism. That would be a chimerical undertaking, with results being completely incoherent. Though, that doesn't mean as some folks here say that religious people can't be communist. That's bullshit as communism isn't to be equated with Marxism.

[human strike]

History is full of examples where religion is used to communicate radical politics. Religion is always just the mouthpiece of ideology, but there's nothing inherently reactionary about it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

History is full of examples where religion is used to communicate radical politics. Religion is always just the mouthpiece of ideology, but there's nothing inherently reactionary about it.

The problem is that "radical politics" can mean a lot of things. And if we actually examine "radical politics" that is communicated in religious language (and religion isn't simply a kind of language; it is a part of the structure of class society), it is always confused, and either alloyed with liberalism (MLK) or reactionary attitudes (Weitling) - or both.

And I mean, this isn't some minor detail. People forget that much of the Left was in mad, mad love with the Iranian mullahs, while they were crushing the workers and the oppressed of Iran. Partly (anti-Sovietism played a major role here, of course) because people are too quick to lap up religious "radicalism". Or take Ortega. Didn't Ortega receive praise for his bizarre attempt to fuse Stalinism and Christianity? Now he's responsible for a draconian anti-abortion law.

[jullia]

Some religion as Islam don't make the difference between the spiritual life and the political state.
So in this case, it's absolutly impossible to conciliate the two, as religion will try to change the politics.

And even, for other religion who are less intrusive, i'am not sure it's possible. Or at least very dificult.