Religion and the revolutionary left

[Culicarius]

As someone who recently cemented their belief that capitalism is something that must go, I think about religion a lot. To start off I'm not really religious, I find that some beliefs like Buddhism and Pantheism have a lot of things I'm able to relate to in order to be a better person, and in a way, I think strengthens my empathy towards people and drives me to want to be a part of change in the world.

I don't feel I can properly speak for Buddhism as a whole as I've not been raised nor visited countries where it's prominent, but living in the USA I have a lot of exposure to Christianity. Basically, I've been wondering how compatible religion is with revolutionary beliefs, and if it hinders it to a degree.

My own opinions have changed on the subject. I used to despise religion as a whole, and anyone who so much as believed in any deity(ies). From my perspective religion has helped to fuel hateful thoughts such as racism (i.e. Christianity and Colonialism), homophobia, and transphobia. I saw them as an opposition to my beliefs and, ultimately, as something that took away peoples' humanity and put them into boxes, i.e. "a gay". Eventually I began to meet people who adhere to Christianity but didn't have these beliefs. A good friend of mine is actually very Christian but has tons of left-wing beliefs, and regularly calls out Christians on their bigotry.

Currently I find myself at a dilemma of sorts. I recognize that there are some religious people who are not hateful, just as there are some who are. I want to say that religious institutions aren't an issue, and that people have twisted religious texts to justify despicable things they believe in and want to accomplish. But at the same time I feel bombarded by a reminder that religion can be incredibly toxic. For example, the Catholic Church as an institution can fuck off. Religion plays into trans issues a lot, like Leelah Alcorn's ultra Christian parents leading to her committing suicide.

If I had to say what my issue is, it's that I know there are good people who are religious. But I feel being critical of religious institutions and believing something along the lines of "religion as a whole is problematic and contradictory to progress and further divides us, but I'll admit there's some nice people who are religious" may not be the best course of thought.

I'm curious how others on RevLeft approach religion and specifically what your thoughts on religious individuals vs. religious institutions is. That's where I think I'm stuck and am unsure how to proceed.


**edit** I suppose this is perhaps more specific to Christianity and maybe the Abrahamic religions. A generalized anti-religion stance is, I think, problematic; to label all non-Abrahamic religions, indigenous people and their beliefs, etc., I think is disregarding people who are not white and not living in a colonized nation.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I find that religious institutions are often forced to take a pro-capitalist stance in order to maintain funding from wealthy donors. Churches risk suffering a kind of capital flight if they are too critical of capitalism.

For example, there have been reports of wealthy Catholics being unhappy with Pope Francis because of some of the statements he made in support of economic justice. The implication here is that the pope should fete the wealthy to attract more donations or risk losing financial support from the rich.

See: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/going-galt-pope-francis

I do not expect any of the major organized religions to become truly opposed to capitalism because of this dependence on wealthy members.

Individual religious people can be truly opposed to capitalism, though.

[Subversive]

Religion is one of those hard topics to speak about because everyone has their own opinions, ones they believe in very strongly.

- Some revolutionaries believe that Religion has to go, forever, permanently, and be 'stamped out' and such. These same revolutionaries are also usually, the people who are most-ignorant of religious beliefs. If questioned about basic religious ideas they can't answer honestly. They are often the ones who will willingly reject the 'good people' along with the 'bad', even the ones in support of the cause.
- Other revolutionaries are open to religion "as long as it does not effect the government". These people are ones who accept that there are "good people" and that allowance of religious people in support of the cause is good for the cause - but they also ignore the "bad people" simultaneously - they believe that political religious-oppression is the only kind of religious-oppression.

Historically speaking, we have seen both following a revolution:
- The Soviet Union, for example, despite what some people think, actually followed the second premise. They saw institutionalized Religion as an opponent to the revolution and therefore tried to destroy all Institutionalized-Religion, anything at all that had State-influence. Personal beliefs were still allowed and no one was directly persecuted simply for holding a particular religious belief, only for being part of or defending a religious-institution.
- Maoism, on the other hand, took the first premise. The 'Cultural Revolution' sought to destroy anything and everything related to Religion entirely. They sought religious holy-books and burned them. They took religious-artifacts and destroyed them. They executed and banished many monks and religious leaders for no reason other than that they were religious.

In my opinion - both of these concepts are harmful to a revolution, though I'm more willing to agree with the second premise than the first. We must accept anyone in support of the revolution no matter their ties. This includes the religious, the bourgeois, anarchists, and etc. We need their strength. As the old saying goes: 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'

In any case, before I state what I think is the 'correct' method, let me explain how I think 'Religion' should be understood - since it is such a vague umbrella term. There are three parts of Religion: Spirituality, Dogma, and Institution.

- Spirituality is the core-belief set of all Religion. It is the subjective philosophies and teachings of a Religious-belief personal to the individual. It is not something enforced upon them, but simply accepted.
- Dogma is the non-core-beliefs of Religion. They are the rigidly defined 'laws' of religion and such that are turned into objective concepts. They are not personal, but universalized. Rules that everyone must follow. They are 'enforced' on people by the Religious-Institution, sometimes directly through the State and sometimes indirectly through the concepts of non-affiliation, excommunication, and etc.
- Institutions are obviously the Churches and any other sort of organized-union of people that assert pressure, dominance, and/or law through Dogma and/or the State.

And yes, most Religions seem to have these parts. It is not just Abrahamic religions. There have been instances where, for example, Buddhists have persecuted Muslims and such things. There are also Buddhist Temples and gatherings and such, as well. Most Religions have some institutionalization. And where you find dogma you'll likely find an institution.

Defined this way I think it becomes clear the problem with the two earlier premises.
The first wishes to abolish all Religion, all three parts. The Second wishes to abolish only the last.

I think the real solution is much more complex. We must abolish only Dogma and Institution, but keep Spirituality.

To abolish Spirituality is, essentially, to abolish Philosophy itself - it would deplete the Worker and make them not only tired of the Revolution but tired of life itself. You will only destroy the worker by doing this. It is not beneficial to the cause. The example being the 'Cultural Revolution' in China and its deep and very harmful impact on Chinese society. So this is not a feasible solution for the revolution.

To ignore Dogma, is essentially, to allow the means of the Institution to continue to fulfill its end. Dogma such as the "laws" of Christianity - the believed rules that Christians must reject things like Homosexuality, even though some Homosexual are Christian, are aberrant to the Revolutionary cause. They must be expelled along with the institutions. We must do away with not only with current means of their power, but also the means of establishing that power. This is what occurred in the USSR, and why religious-force became such a large counter-force to its dissolution.

But destroying dogma is very tricky without abolishing or destroying it completely. So many precautions must be taken to ensure the rights steps - a wrong move may mean you get the backlash of a large religious-group, whether because you were too harsh and the spiritualists resent you, or you are too lenient and you allowed the institutions to resent you.

In a Marxist sense, the elimination of the Bourgeoisie will eliminate the need for Religion. It will abolish both dogma and institution and will allow people to just be themselves (Spirituality will remain). But obviously there is no methods described by Marx for accomplishing this, he focuses, intentionally, on the larger scope of the problem: Capitalism.

So my conclusion is simply this: During the midst of the revolutionary establishment of a new government, a Constitution chartering against the dogmas of religion, along with all other fundamental rights, must be created. This document must enforce the censoring of religious-beliefs in open and against all groups and all individuals, and must protect all individuals against the harms of dogmatic religion. However, it must also ensure the continued practiced, if laws not withholding, of all Religion, therefore to ensure the right to practice Religion in closed-doors (in groups), and in writing if non-dogmatic, and its protection against the State.
However, this is to explicitly mean that those within 'closed-doors' cannot still hate-monger other groups. Hate-speech will not only be banned from the public, but also completely. 'Hate' against any groups or individuals will never be tolerated, religious or otherwise.
Wherever necessary the laws must then also amend these rights to ensure the censoring of all religious dogma.

Measures must also be taken to ensure that those speaking dogmas in public, or holding institution, can be differentiated from those simply speaking generally religious beliefs. If the Constitution is not written with extreme care this impacts the Cause due to strained relationships between religious-revolutionaries and non-religious revolutionaries. It is an aspect of revolution that has been a focus of before and also one which aided to destroy the revolutionary-support. It is something which takes immeasurable precautions for the rightful outcome of both parties.

So a Constitution will charter itself not against Religious-practice, but against harmful-Religious-practice. It must determine, clearly and in written form, what constitutes as "harmful religious practice" and outlaw this completely, and without hesitation or leniency.
Whereby, this will abolish both Institution (Religious-State) and Dogma (Religious-Influence) from allowing Religion to assume any form of power, but simultaneously it will allow the growth of a new type of Religion, a new type of "Religious Freedom".

Some modern-day Constitutions already have some aspects of this within them, even if not truly held by the practicing governments. Things like how the government cannot discriminate between race, gender, ethnicity, national-origin, etc. These concepts would simply be furthered to enforce censure of all people against splitting up of groups. The overall tone must be one of collectiveness, togetherness, unity. It must attempt to establish The People as a unified force, regardless of all unalterable traits, and intentionally condemn people who work against this whole to create tensions and disunity.

This is also to mean it must, simultaneously, not enforce the thoughts of any one group. It must not persecute all Christians or all Christianity simply for the beliefs of some dogmatic Christians. It must not persecute the entire people of a Church for the Church's dogma. The Church would be condemned, destroyed, dismantled, or whatever else, but the people themselves should not be harmed unless they speak out themselves. It must be known that this is not a 'Witch Hunt', but the elimination of fracturing-groups. The elimination of hate and thereby hateful people.

Most particularly, this Constitution should be created with the aid and assistance of the Religious-Revolutionaries, not with their exclusion. By doing so it will naturally concentrate on the elimination of Religious-negativity and focus on creating something new: 'Revolutionary-Religion'.

A revolution which succeeds at doing this will not be condemned for its atrocities against religion, as in the past, but exalted for its upholding of 'true Religion' against the confines of 'old Religion'. It will grow support, rather than diminish it.


To finalize my position: I have been studying the concept of 'Religion in Revolution' for, roughly, about 10 years. I have studied various Philosophies, global Religions from practically every culture, and also the writings and histories of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and etc.
Religion within the Revolution is something I believe that needs another look by the current-revolutionaries due to the prevalent misconception that Communism is inherently anti-Religious, by both the revolutionaries themselves and by pro-Capitalists. Marx and Engels are, most particularly, misunderstood on this issue. One thing is absolutely clear: It is definitely not a clear black-and-white issue as the many anti-religious revolutionaries attempt to make it out to be. They are merely misguided due to their frustrations with the current way-of-things, and that's understandable to some extent.

[Vogel]

I for one am very religious, in the kind of way martin Luther king was, where he got inspiration for his leftism from Jesus. MLK was also able to use the church for his reforms, and would have had them for his next march on washington. Religion and church is extremely valuable, not least of all for the Church's ability to bring people together in a social setting.

[Atsumari]

I think many of you guys would like this
http://bennorton.com/what-would-marx-think-about-reactionary-new-atheists/
When studying the sociology of religion, the best I conclusion I was able to find was that religion adapts to society rather than society adapting to religion with a few exceptions.

And on the issue of LGBT discrimination, to say that religion is the cause of homophobia would be incorrect given the history of homophobia in secular movements on both the right and left and homophobia in modern secular nations such as Vietnam and South Korea. We cannot forget that Christian dominant nations such as Argentina and Brazil are pretty accepting of homosexuals overall.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I think many of you guys would like this
http://bennorton.com/what-would-marx-think-about-reactionary-new-atheists/
When studying the sociology of religion, the best I conclusion I was able to find was that religion adapts to society rather than society adapting to religion with a few exceptions.

And on the issue of LGBT discrimination, to say that religion is the cause of homophobia would be incorrect given the history of homophobia in secular movements on both the right and left and homophobia in modern secular nations such as Vietnam and South Korea. We cannot forget that Christian dominant nations such as Argentina and Brazil are pretty accepting of homosexuals overall.

Great point. This was pretty much what I was trying to say, although you did a better job of getting right to the point.

Religion is not immune to changes in society. A successful revolution would mean that religion would have to adapt to a new socialist reality just as it did when capitalism replaced feudalism.

[Бай Ганьо]

I'm totally against religion, but I'm not militant, so I would never forbid anyone to believe in ghosts, and would never consider them bad in doing so as long as they don't force me to believe in / practice their crap. Whether people are good or bad has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, rather with their actions (that might be based upon those beliefs, like killing someone in the name of Zeus).


To abolish Spirituality is, essentially, to abolish Philosophy itself
This sentence presents a non-problem, since spirituality (understood as intuition*) simply cannot be abolished. What should be abolished, however, are those intuitive things that can be invalidated by rational thought and (the lack of) empirical data. All superstituous beliefs are such things.

*Yes, understood as intuition, else your sentence would be nonsensical. I don't see how a "simply accepted" "core-belief set of all religion" (see your own definition of spirituality) could be the point of departure of any serious philosophy. "Simply accepted" stands in contradiction with the critical attitude expected from a philosopher. I neither see how abolishing "a core-belief set of all religion" could essentially equal abolishing philosophy itself, unless you think that spirituality and philosophy are one and the same thing or share the same "core-belief set".


In a Marxist sense, the elimination of the Bourgeoisie will eliminate the need for Religion. It will abolish both dogma and institution and will allow people to just be themselves (Spirituality will remain).
The elimination of the bourgeoisie will have better education for all as corollary, which will make the need for all stupid kinds of spirituality decrease.



If I had to say what my issue is, it's that I know there are good people who are religious. But I feel being critical of religious institutions and believing something along the lines of "religion as a whole is problematic and contradictory to progress and further divides us, but I'll admit there's some nice people who are religious" may not be the best course of thought.
On the contrary, I think it is the best approach, and I would even go further and say that, it is uncritically assessed intuition that is “problematic and contradictory to progress”. Without such spirituality, there would never have been religion and religious institutions.


Religion and church is extremely valuable, not least of all for the Church's ability to bring people together in a social setting.
That is probably the only value of religion, but do we really need religion to bring people together and to make them support each other? I might be wrong but I don't think so. There are plenty of alternatives imaginable.


In my view, the perfect revolution is a revolution which leads to a society without religion. Admittedly, that's kind of utopian, so I'd already be happy with a drastic reduction of the religious population through education.

By education, I don't mean that we should teach people that it is stupid to believe in supernatural things, but rather that we should help them to acquire the necessary critical skills to make a decision for themselves. I'm convinced that rational people will come to the conclusion that religion and "simply accepted core-belief sets" are garbage.

My hopes for such a revolution are dashed by the current revival of superstituous beliefs in many parts of the world though, which not surprisingly coincides with the overall growing poverty.

[Subversive]

This sentence presents a non-problem, since spirituality (understood as intuition*) simply cannot be abolished. What should be abolished, however, are those intuitive things that can be invalidated by rational thought and (the lack of) empirical data. All superstituous beliefs are such things.

*Yes, understood as intuition, else your sentence would be nonsensical. I don't see how a "simply accepted" "core-belief set of all religion" (see your own definition of spirituality) could be the point of departure of any serious philosophy.
No, I do not mean "intuition". That doesn't make any sense.
I meant Philosophy, as I stated. What is wrong with seeing religious-Philosophy as a type of Philosophy? Why do you think this is "nonsensical"?

Philosophy is merely a model of living, a way of life, a certain kind of perspective. It also tends to sometimes create goals for people who might otherwise feel lost.

This is what all Philosophies are. So what makes you think Religions are exempt from possessing such a thing?
For example, the teachings of Jesus are generally Philosophies. Things like preaching love, acceptance, and forgiveness? Those are, necessarily, philosophies. Of course that is merely a generalization of his philosophies, he surely taught many deeper insights into living that can, do, and will help people.

These are the sort of things that people can 'simply accept' without any dogma attached. These are merely perspectives on life. You can 'accept' it or acknowledge its truth without actually participating in it. You can see, factually and observably (empirically), that following the teachings of Jesus (and others) actually does benefit someone's life.
This is contrary to Dogma which is, for example, the belief you absolutely must adhere to things like a stance on anti-Homosexuality, or that you must attend Church every Sunday. Or that you must "accept Jesus as God" and other such silly things. One can also, 'empirically', observe that dogmas do harm to certain types of people, anyone whose lives do not fit into the dogmatic laws. Exceptions cannot be made, so the harm is done by their mere existence.

These are what separate the religious-Philosophies (Spirituality) from the Religious-laws (Dogma).

Think of it this way.
A society follows it's natural tendencies. Every individual tries to behave as themselves, as their personality dictates. The State governs over them and enforces Laws and Rules. The people, fearing for their lives, follow these Laws and Rules. Many even participate in The State because they believe it is a good thing to have these Laws.

Religion is easily comparable. The Church (Institutions) are the State. The Dogma are the Laws. The Philosophies (Spirituality) are the natural tendencies of the People, their individual personalities.

Each Religion has its own personality. A religion is like a society in and of itself. Religions have their own cultures, their own traditions, their own personal crafts, their own conventions. They even have their own sub-cultures.



"Simply accepted" stands in contradiction with the critical attitude expected from a philosopher.
You are being too literal.



I neither see how abolishing "a core-belief set of all religion" could essentially equal abolishing philosophy itself, unless you think that spirituality and philosophy are one and the same thing or share the same "core-belief set".
'Sprituality' as I have defined it are equal to Philosophies. They are merely the Philosophies derived from Religions.
To abolish Religious-Philosophy would require the abolishment of Philosophy itself, due to the fact that no one could easily make any distinction.

For example, much of what Jesus teaches is Humanitarianism. So, how would society abolish the teachings of Jesus without also abolishing Humanitarianism? It can't be done. You could certainly try but inevitably all you will be doing is persecuting a variety of people - many of whom were innocent and never did any harm to anyone.

On the topic of abolishing irrationality: I think you're also looking at this the wrong way.
How do you define "rational thought" exactly?
And how do you define "empirical data"?
And most importantly, how do you define "superstition" exactly?

If you are honest with yourself, you'll find that these terms are much more vague than they would appear.
What is "empirical" imply? That something must be observable. But by whom? And when? And how?

Let's say some scientists analyze a celestial event that only occurs momentarily every 100 years. They take observations and find that their previous understanding of Physics is all wrong. So they derive a new interpretation of Physics from their observations. For them it was certainly empirical evidence. But for everyone else, is this "empirical data" or not?

While we're at it, let's talk about science in general. The average person, the 'non-scientist', usually just takes the word of others knowledgeable in the area and cannot discern for themselves what is true and what is not.
If biology states that germs spread disease then one must assume that germs exist and that they spread disease. Is this not a 'rational thought'? It would require an immense amount of knowledge to truly understand the concepts of cells, germs, viruses, organs, bodies, and etc. and how they all interact with the human body to create disease.
Let us be honest here: Everyone makes these sort of assumptions because it is impossible to know everything. And it is very rational to do this. What would be considered 'irrational' would be attempting to, and always failing, to understand literally everything in order to make any type of conclusion at all.

Furthermore, this is not what science is. We admittedly don't know everything. And we still find science to be very "rational".

Do you see where I am going with this?
The point being that no matter what your definitions are for "rational thought" and "empirical data" you will find some amount of vagueness and ambiguity necessary simply for these definitions to function in the real world, and you surely cannot create 'law' based on purely theoretical definitions, ones which do not work in the real world, because then the laws themselves do not work.
And ultimately, when you have vagueness and ambiguity in your definitions you simply open up room for argument. And where there is room to argue, you'll find the religiously-devoted people will use it against you as an attempt to reinforce and stabilize their dogmas against your attempts to deny it.

Ever see an evolution vs anti-evolution debate?
The reason is simply because both sides talk past each other, because, truthfully, there really is room open to what is defined as 'rational'.
To the Creationists they simply refuse to accept something they can't visibly observe, and refuse to accept the fact that scientists (who might be biased) have more knowledge than themselves. They therefore forego making a conclusion at all and merely accept one, a dogma, from their institution, based on some people's personal interpretations of religion.
To the Scientists, they see this people refusing to acknowledge observable phenomena, because to the Scientist they are observing the basis for this phenomena which is leading to the larger phenomena. They accept all the data formulated prior to the current conclusion of which almost all other people, knowledgeable about the subject, have formerly accepted. The Scientists is merely then applying what is done every day, homogenizing knowledge.
To the Creationist, who has rejected what he cannot see, they won't accept the larger phenomena. For them one thing does not necessarily lead to the other. They are attempting to homogenize their own set of data, steeped in religious-dogma, and ultimately throw out the first abstraction - the fact that the thing they call "macro-evolution" (large-scale evolution) is not correct because it is not empirical. They instead accept the formerly accepted truth, their religious dogma.

Therefore we come to an impasse. The Scientist and the Creationist talk past each other because they do not understand that, essentially, both sides are arguing 'rationally', just merely under different definitions of what it means to be "rational". Merely seeing things different in terms of not "empirical data" itself, but what it means for something to be "empirical".

What is happening here, in truth, is that both parties are thinking along the same lines, merely trying to adapt their beliefs to their previous beliefs, but that they have both established different sets of beliefs prior to the current conclusion. They are ultimately very different perspectives that the person has 'rationally' accepted.

Though, what it means for something to be 'rational' is merely extended in this case, to the outer edges where the term itself becomes blurry, vague, and realistically impractical.
That is why both sides see the other as being irrational - their perspective is one in which enforces the definition to another side, eliminating the rationality of the other.

Back to the topic at hand: This is ultimately why my suggestions are necessary. It does not attempt to eliminate irrational-thoughts directly. It is the approach to eliminate irrational-thinking.
By eliminating irrational-thinking, rather than irrational-thoughts, one roots out the problem entirely. You cannot form irrational-thought if one does not think irrationally.

The means to do this is by eliminating the religious-force of Religion. By abolishing the acts of spreading and enforcing 'social-laws' of any form, against any group or individual, one also abolishes the privilege of irrational-thought. And by abolishing the privilege of such, one abolishes the very nature of benefit for thinking irrationally. Without benefit, and in fact punishment against the act thereof, one is in every way disinclined to accept, perform, or create irrational-thinking.

The Constitution to be created therefore does not abolish Religion or Religious beliefs, but only abolishes concepts of dogma, both religious and otherwise, that have tainted society with 'hate' under the guise of 'Free Speech' or 'Religious tolerance'.

And this is all done entirely without attempting to explicitly define something which is, necessarily, impossible to explicitly define: 'rationality'.
It is also done without the direct-persecution of others, or their personal philosophies. Without the direct-persecution of the individuals, continuing to allow them the freedom to believe, fully, so long as it does not harm others.

Any other questions about this?



The elimination of the bourgeoisie will have better education for all as corollary, which will make the need for all stupid kinds of spirituality decrease.
This will be part of it, yes.
However, proper education would only be one platform to dissolving Religion as a State-influence, and as a Social-influence. What else must be done, in the revolutionary phase of development, is the State-abolishment of religious dogma, which also comes through as abolishment of Religion as Institution. Without this key aspect, the State itself will merely attempt to abolish Religion, as in the past, because religion is a political and social force which the bourgeoisie use to control and manipulate society. Without power in the State, where will the bourgoisie naturally turn? It will be none other than the Religious-State, the religious Institution. They will attempt to restore their power by culminating a reactionary religious force.

The State will naturally start persecuting followers, both of the reactionary forces and of general believers. It will become a Witch Hunt, just as it has in times past. This will only cause disfavor within the State.

In the case that all Religion is abolished, entirely:
What would stop radical-Atheism from forming into its own unique Religion itself? From being a State-enforced belief-system? One which enforces itself, its philosophies, and its own dogma on the people? One which abolishes and persecutes other religions only because it believes, without proof, that it is the Truth and the only Truth?
If the others here are correct in stating that Religion follows the changes in Society, rather than Society following the changes in Religion, then the result would inevitably be that the State's persecution of Religion would become a Religion in and of itself. The persecution itself becoming the Dogma. The State itself becoming the religious-Institution. You have merely collectivized Religion under one flag, not abolished it!

A society which would focus solely on the abolishment of Religion, rather than the freedom of Religion from State-enforcement, is one which would enforce its own State-Religion. The result is inevitably doomed, as are all State-Religions.

Visualizing such a revolutionary State, wherein it persecutes entire tides of people only on aspects of affiliation, one can easily imagine a repeat of Nazi Germany. A Worker revolution? I think not. Such a revolution would never succeed. Thus, why the precautions and measures I suggested should be taken.

So, what I propose is wholly different. To allow Religion to be a force which helps society to develop a new means of approaching and accepting the revolution. Religion without the Dogmas or Religious-State controlling its Philosophies.

How will it aid the cause? Very simply. Most people know that, for example, Christian Philosophies are inherently sympathetic to the revolutionary-cause. Jesus, for example, explains to give away earthly possessions and wealth, especially to the poor, in order to create a balance, acceptance, and love for society. All religious philosophies are inherently like this in their core-tenets. It only requires a means to extract that essence from within them, to remove the "impurities", if you will. To bring about what should be, and likely will be, considered 'True Religion'.
Religion can work in our favor, rather than against it. What revolutionary doesn't want that?

This is much more than simply abolishing irrational-beliefs. This is about establishing a fundamental aspect of new society - one which enforces individualization of beliefs, and rational-thinking, and possesses a core-teaching of togetherness and unity of individuals, rather than attempting to unify the People as a singular entity, as if the individual is, somehow, a malleable substance to be formed by the State.

The individual is the individual, not to be confused with a lump of clay. The individual is that which society is birthed, not the thing which society births. Thus, it must be clearly understood, that the individual nature of the individual must also be the nature of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Without the cause of the individual then how can it be representative of the individual? A dictatorship lost in the desires of its leaders is merely just a bourgeois dictatorship. It does not resemble the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Creative Destruction]

I think some revolutionaries overstate the importance of atheism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And on the issue of LGBT discrimination, to say that religion is the cause of homophobia would be incorrect given the history of homophobia in secular movements on both the right and left and homophobia in modern secular nations such as Vietnam and South Korea. We cannot forget that Christian dominant nations such as Argentina and Brazil are pretty accepting of homosexuals overall.

This is the same as saying that the pulmonary plague obviously doesn't cause death, as people die from cholera. (And some people who have the pulmonary plague survive.) Obviously the root cause of homophobia is class society, and particularly the way in which the class of direct producers is reproduced, the institution of the family. At the same time, religion obviously plays a role in homophobic violence, as a proximate cause. Many on the so-called left prefer to ignore this in favour of orientalist fantasies about the "good", "indigenous" religions and the patronising view that the working class can't do without religion.

And homosexuality is one of the few topics where this passes for intelligent conversation - obviously if someone had said Jim Crow shouldn't be fought because the North was racist as well, no one would take them seriously.

Of course, it's no concern of the workers' state if people believe in gods and buddhas, or ghosts and goblins, or even the efficacy of reformism. People believe all sorts of ridiculous things. To battle religion, the workers' state will have to do no more than fully apply to religious organisations rules that others must follow. No special exceptions for the religious, no ridiculous "objections of conscience", etc.

That and, of course, the workers' state will crush the religious organisations economically. To deal a blow to religion, aim for the wallet. No more land-owning, no more salaries for existing, no more tax exemptions - I imagine most priests will have turned their collar after a year of actually having to work for a living.

[Subversive]

I think some revolutionaries overstate the importance of atheism.
For once I agree with you.
In fact, many of the revolutionaries I've met dramatically overstate the importance of atheism, to the point I fear they really just want to start slaughtering religious people. :scared: I've met some real crazies in my years.

[cyu]

I grew up thinking a religious person, a conservative, and a pro-capitalist were basically different ways of describing the same thing. It wasn't until later that I realized that capitalists are actively funding religious think tanks in an effort to co-opt Christianity for their own political ends. So I thought to myself, if they can do that, why can't I?

If you see me reading the Bible, it's because I'm looking for passages to turn Christians against capitalism. If you see me reading the Koran, it's for similar reasons.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I think some revolutionaries overstate the importance of atheism.
I don't see why atheism should be important at all or even relevant for us. Fighting against religious beliefs as such is stupid and counterproductive. Religion can both be a cloak of reaction and oppression as well as a protest of the oppressed as Marx noted. Reactionary and counter- revolutionary views and institutions should be handled as such without concern for the ideology used for their justification. I really don't see why an atheist (right- wing) libertarian is any better than a christian conservative. The almighty goddess of Reason is used just as effectively and widely to justify oppression and reactionary views & practices as any religious doctrine. As Roland Boer said: "...the line is not between theism and atheism, but between progressive and reactionary politics."

Also, I find most religious people more interesting and more pleasant to be around than these fedoratheists.

Old Karl summed it up well:

"‘atheism’ [...] reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man"

[Gracchus R.]

The real danger of the religion is not the belief (because what are political view, and knowledge itself, but belief based on justification), the real danger is any hierarchical institution imposing their faith and their opinion on what it is and how it should be practice. I have no problem with christianity, as I see myself greatly influenced by it, but yet I can't support any Church, because it deny the egal capacity of each human being to thing by themselves and live their spirituality according to their own feeling and thinking.

There was a guy back then, in Russia, named Lev Nikolaievitch Tolstoy, who support a form of christinity where there is no institutionnalized churches. He claim that the true teaching of Jesus Christ was anarchism through pacific beavior and that the State, by using those messages, have twist the teaching of it and use it against those it should defend. Tolstoy wrote a lot about it, one of them being ''The Kingdom of God is Within You'', the book that have influenced Ghandi.

I also like Jean Baptiste Clément, a communard, who have said: ''God, if He was, He would be on our side''. Victor Hugo also wrote in one of his little known poem that God owe them [the atheists communards dead in 1871] the astonishment of Heaven. My faith is similar, God is with those who fight for social justice, and my duty as a human being is to imitate those who have done so.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Idunno I'm like Muslim but recently I've been going to my old church (Russian/Ukrainian Orthodox) not for any spiritual reason it just makes me feel really calm and at peace. There's probably going to be a bunch of neckbeards railing about how some idiotically hypocritical internet fantasy of death to believers is awesome and how that totally makes sense or others jaw on about how the concept of Deity is comparable to pasta, again, because somehow despite all logic known to man, that makes sense as well but really, the political systems in play and the terms of social organization pervert spirituality. Like most worldly things. Further that religion, organized or otherwise, is inherently bad and so on.

Everybody love everybody for Jesus sake

[Бай Ганьо]

Subversive, the first sentence of my answer to your message was referring to the fact that, while you can abolish laws, slavery, child labor, and so on, you cannot abolish spirituality as much as you cannot kill ideas. It’s the verb “abolish” that has nothing to do there. Or do you seriously think that introducing a law would suddenly make spirituality vanish? Am I being too literal again?

I concede that I made the mistake of using that same verb in the subsequent sentence; that goes to show that bullshit is contagious.

The second reason why your statement is nonsensical would be obvious to you if you had basic knowledge of set theory. A and B are members of C. If I remove A out of the set, does that make C disappear? If I put 2 coins in your pocket, and remove one coin, does that make your pocket disappear? Religious and non-religious philosophy are part of philosophy. If I remove religious philosophy, does that make philosophy disappear? Your attempt to save yourself with the assertion that “no one could easily make a distinction between religious philosophy and philosophy” is pitiful, after you yourself stated that we have to see “religious-Philosophy as a type of Philosophy”. I need not to comment further on that.

Needless to say, spirituality and religious philosophy aren’t synonyms. What about SBNR?

It is you who is constantly redefining words, inventing new spellings, being obscure and vague, and asking people to make something rational out of something that is obviously not.


No, I do not mean "intuition". That doesn't make any sense.
It does make more sense than what you wrote. Without intuition, both philosophy and scientific research wouldn’t evolve.


Philosophy is merely a model of living, a way of life, a certain kind of perspective. It also tends to sometimes create goals for people who might otherwise feel lost.

This is what all Philosophies are.
That’s indeed what philosophies are, but only one of the many things philosophy encompasses. Even Wikipedia proposes a more accurate definition of philosophy than you.


So what makes you think Religions are exempt from possessing such a thing?
I have never stated that.


You are being too literal.
That’s a weak argument.


For example, much of what Jesus teaches is Humanitarianism. So, how would society abolish the teachings of Jesus without also abolishing Humanitarianism? It can't be done. You could certainly try but inevitably all you will be doing is persecuting a variety of people - many of whom were innocent and never did any harm to anyone.
All principles on which humanitarianism rely can be found without Jesus or any other prophet’s help. Getting rid of Jesus would not lead to the disappearance of humanitarianism, and one does not need religious philosophy to come to similar conclusions about love, forgiveness, etc. Jesus wasn’t making unique discoveries with his “teachings” and he wasn’t the first neither the last to show up with a set of ethical principles.

Besides, what Jesus taught was not humanitarianism. Jesus was a communitarianist who preached only for the Jews, the chosen people. It was his followers, and mainly St. Paul, who spread Jesus’s “teachings” through christianization beyond the borders of Galilee and Judea. And if we have a closer look at those “teachings”, we see that Jesus held highly contradictory views and often spoke gibberish. For example, how could a consistent preacher of peace and love say belligerent things like “Think not that I have come to end peace on earth: I came not to end peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34)? How is cursing a tree useful to people: “[…], Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out i fit had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. The he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again” (Mark 11:12-25)?

It looks like the “teachings” you are talking about are only to be found through a highly selective and constantly evolving metaphorical reading of the same unchanged biblical texts, activity at which theologians excel. Does that kind of reading correspond to your standard of scientific attitude and clarity?

There is as much hatred as love in the holy writings, as many wise sayings as absurdities. You only want to see the good things, I see both positive and negative, and come to the conclusion that we need neither those texts nor faith to reproduce and develop the good things.

Don't worry for those poor Christians, I'm not planning an "atheist crusade" against them, like the most fanatic among them did centuries ago against Cathars, Muslims, etc.


On the topic of abolishing irrationality: I think you're also looking at this the wrong way.
How do you define "rational thought" exactly?
And how do you define "empirical data"?
And most importantly, how do you define "superstition" exactly?

If you are honest with yourself, you'll find that these terms are much more vague than they would appear.
What is "empirical" imply? That something must be observable. But by whom? And when? And how?
For definitions, just buy a dictionary. I could question every single word of all messages posted on this board the way you do: how do you define “I”, how do you define “thinking”, how do you define “the wrong way”, how do you define “defining”, how do you define “exactly”, etc.?

That’s the risible way of arguing of a radical skeptic. With such an attitude, knowledge is impossible. If knowledge is impossible, then science is impossible. If science is impossible, then technology is impossible. But wait, isn’t it awkward that as radical skeptic you somehow trust science, its method and its results enough to make daily use of its technological applications? Why aren’t you so skeptic about your computer?

There’s a broader consensus on what “empirical data” means, than on what f.e. “religious force” is, that vague concept you mention somewhere in your message.

“That something must be observable. But by whom? And when? And how?” By anyone, with the best instruments and whenever you can get the most accurate results.


While we're at it, let's talk about science in general. […]

Do you see where I am going with this?
Oh yes, I do.


The point being that no matter what your definitions are […]

Therefore we come to an impasse. The Scientist and the Creationist talk past each other because they do not understand that, essentially, both sides are arguing 'rationally', just merely under different definitions of what it means to be "rational". Merely seeing things different in terms of not "empirical data" itself, but what it means for something to be "empirical". […]
Where you are going with this is very clear to me: you are trying to defend a cognitive relativist position, pretending that the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to an individual or social group. By doing so, you are simply redefining the notion of truth and reducing it to utility, which means that a statement would only be true depending on its utility for the individual or social group at hand. Truth would merely be the result of an intersubjective agreement. Different intersubjective agreements on the same subject would be equally rational.

Well, this is postmodern nonsense. A statement is true to the extent that it reflects the world as it is. This is why your question here is babble:


Let's say some scientists analyze a celestial event that only occurs momentarily every 100 years. They take observations and find that their previous understanding of Physics is all wrong. So they derive a new interpretation of Physics from their observations. For them it was certainly empirical evidence. But for everyone else, is this "empirical data" or not?
At one point in history, for everyone else the earth was flat. That doesn’t mean they were right.

If 99% of people tell the remainder 1% that driving fast leads to brain cancer, maybe that will be useful to make the 1% drive slower, but that doesn’t mean that what they say is true.


I think some revolutionaries overstate the importance of atheism.
It’s not so much atheism that is important, but rationality.

[Rudolf]

Subversive, the first sentence of my answer to your message was referring to the fact that, while you can abolish laws, slavery, child labor, and so on, you cannot abolish spirituality as much as you cannot kill ideas. It’s the verb “abolish” that has nothing to do there. Or do you seriously think that introducing a law would suddenly make spirituality vanish? Am I being too literal again?

I find this pretty funny as you equate abolition with lawmaking. Despite all the laws against slavery it continues and it's pretty widespread. The same can be said of child labour.

Religion, child labour, slavery are all abolished the same way: through altering the material conditions in society and not through scribbling on pieces of paper.

Further, i think its pretty obvious you can in a general way kill ideas. The concept of the divine rule of kings was dominant yet now to even suggest it you're looked at in a way in which you're considered as delusional. The difference, again, is a change in material conditions in society. In a society wherein the capitalist mode of production reigns the divine rule of kings is cast into the annals of history... The same will be said of religion after the destruction of class society.

[Rafiq]

I think some revolutionaries overstate the importance of atheism.

On the contrary, revolutionaries grossly understate its importance. Atheism without Communism, as Marx understood it was an impossibility. Or, in other words, atheism without the revolutionary movement is an abstraction. Atheism is not an identity in itself which is merely a part of being a revolutionary, but an irrevocable characterization of our movement as a rejection of all worldly legitimization of the present epoch. The presence of religious sentiment, or even sympathies towards it by so-called socialists (Not the study of religion as such, but its existing expression in society) is inversely proportional to the strength of the movement opposed to the present state of things. What we take qualm with is not any abstract notion of a god but the power behind the very belief in a god, be it religious or creatively theistic (i.e. new age drivel). In other words: why people believe, and what the implications of belief are. Is it solely because they personally, as unique individuals find the idea more reasonable? Is it solely because it is a "view" on things which some people prefer, and others do not? In this age of postmodern corruption, wherein bourgeois standards of reason slowly degenerate, we are inclined to believe so. On the contrary, however, our relationships toward each other and present conditions of life are what breed power to the idea of a god - what could a god ever be but a projection of the mind, the conquest of universal existence by the mind of our society? Surely Marxists ought to recognize this simple fact: That the power of our social existence is infinitely stronger than the power of reason in the minds of those bound to their place in the social order. It is why only the religious themselves can ever fit the archetype of their 'atheism', nihilistic ignorance and for nothing to be forbidden. Only a Christian can conduct black mass.

Only Communism is atheistic, for to be without a god not only necessitates a lack of belief in one, but to be boundless in being from the gods of our present order: the idols of the family, the altars of the state. Bourgeois ideology is only capable of sustaining deism, and today, it is not bishops or clerics which govern the religion of our present order, nay longer even the altars of bourgeois-reason. The high priests of capital take the form of the legitimate conveners of truth, by the spectacle, the technocrats and those designated to be epistemologically qualified by ruling ideology. If you hear something which was irrevocably true, it is dismissed if it does not fit this qualifications. Truth is not perceived as the commons of our existence, but the legitimate means by which our reality is designated. So much so that even if truth is perceived individually, self-derived, it is still rendered illegitimate unless one self-qualifies the credentials to truth, as the self is nothing more than the reflection of one's place in the order.

Atheism is important not because of what atheism qualifies someone as, but because of what a lack of atheism implies for a person. Of course this matters very little when it comes to the ignorant slum dweller or the South American peasant expressing their rage against their ruling class, (for this is a step closer to atheism than any new atheist is) for they are already unbound by the piousness, the hesitance of Christendom. The logical conclusion, however, or when push comes to shove is the complete renunciation of religion (in other words, when ignorance no longer reigns supreme). How could one devout their vitality to the destruction of those in power, to changing the world without renouncing the divine reflection of the world?


Let's say some scientists analyze a celestial event that only occurs momentarily every 100 years. They take observations and find that their previous understanding of Physics is all wrong. So they derive a new interpretation of Physics from their observations. For them it was certainly empirical evidence. But for everyone else, is this "empirical data" or not?


The problem with this, is that such a finding could only ever supersede, not strengthen dichotomy of struggle in theory regarding science. The point is simple: Even if there was a god (which is an affront to reason as is), and we discover this somehow, this existence of a god would have absolutely nothing to do with the religious pathological subject which believes in a god. Knowledge is not and can not be precarious, or, in other words: Knowledge cannot ever be perceived as precarious (is this perhaps what Lenin god wrong in Materialism and Empirio criticism?) as this alone would be a claimant to absolute knowledge. What we can know is what we can know, and the theoretical pre-requisites to new discovery are themselves a component of pretense to absolute knowledge, which means they are not in fact truly posited as relative. Knowing this limitation is already being beyond it.


My hopes for such a revolution are dashed by the current revival of superstituous beliefs in many parts of the world though, which not surprisingly coincides with the overall growing poverty.


And what you fail to articulate is that the revolution is all the more possible because of this. The revolution (like any in history) is necessarily a defense of the legacy of civilization from the onslaught of barbarism, a barbarism manifested in superstition. Hegel said that history was the thresher whereby the hopes and dreams of the people is lost to the abyss forever - he should have elaborated by saying that so too do their nightmares. The power of Communism, of the class struggle as a precise articulation of real people's grievances and social ills will be infinitely more powerful than the decades of shit-piled superstition and reaction. It will wipe the slate of history clean from them and out of nothing can hope arise.

Religion's power will wane exponentially not simply through disciplined education but through the destruction of the social necessity of religion. To add, the movement itself takes an anti-religious character, so its ascension to state power would have already itself been an act of religion's destruction.

[Бай Ганьо]

I find this pretty funny as you equate abolition with lawmaking. Despite all the laws against slavery it continues and it's pretty widespread. The same can be said of child labour.
Religion, child labour, slavery are all abolished the same way: through altering the material conditions in society and not through scribbling on pieces of paper.
You’re right, I agree on that.


Further, i think its pretty obvious you can in a general way kill ideas. The concept of the divine rule of kings was dominant yet now to even suggest it you're looked at in a way in which you're considered as delusional.
You can kill them only in the sense of making them less harmful. The simple fact that you can have a certain idea, even though it is now considered as a ridiculous one, shows that the idea cannot be killed. If that idea survives and, at a given moment in time, the material conditions in society worsen, what is the guarantee that it won’t win its credibility back?


The same will be said of religion after the destruction of class society.

As said earlier, I'm not so optimistic about that.

[Rudolf]

You can kill them only in the sense of making them less harmful. The simple fact that you can have a certain idea, even though it is now considered as a ridiculous one, shows that the idea cannot be killed. If that idea survives and, at a given moment in time, the material conditions in society worsen, what is the guarantee that it won’t win its credibility back?

The divine rule of kings can't come back because it was intimately connected with a now defunct mode of production. I don't see how it can be possible for feudal relations to be dominant once again as the conditions for it is no longer possible due to the revolutionary transformation of society into capitalist society.

A worsening for the proletariat can only be barbarism perpetrated by the bourgeoisie and its lackeys, it cannot be a transformation back into feudalism.




As said earlier, I'm not so optimistic about that.


I don't think it's a matter of optimism. Religion isn't belief nor superstition but a social phenomenon. The destruction of the conditions that gives rise to and sustains it necessarily results in its abolition. I'm of the impression that religion is a response to alienation and the moment alienation ceases, as is the task of communism, religion will wither into the dust.

[Бай Ганьо]

The divine rule of kings can't come back because it was intimately connected with a now defunct mode of production. I don't see how it can be possible for feudal relations to be dominant once again as the conditions for it is no longer possible due to the revolutionary transformation of society into capitalist society.

A worsening for the proletariat can only be barbarism perpetrated by the bourgeoisie and its lackeys, it cannot be a transformation back into feudalism.

What if a natural disaster wipes out the entire human civilization but a little tribe in the Amazonas holding similar doctrine? Highly unlikely scenario, I know, but you cannot exclude it. How can you be sure that the old modes of production (at least in their broad outlines) would not reappear?

Edit:

Just to add a question: from a Marxist point of view, how would you interpret the legacy of the divine rule of kings in countries like Saudi Arabia after their turn to the capitalist mode of production?

[Tim Redd]

What many in this discussion forget or ignore is the crux of the matter. Belief in spirits and gods is an anti materialist position and thus it is opposed to the fundamental philosophical viewpoint of a revolutionary outlook.

People who adhere to religion can make positive contributions to the revolutionary movement, but ultimately the religious viewpoint stands in opposition to a fully revolutionary outlook.

The real position of revolution is atheist materialism.

Those who believe in religion but are revolutionary should be struggled with by revolutionary atheists to show them that gods and spirits are not the source or main movers of reality. We need to show the religious the actual scientific basis of reality and human development and what laws guide the creation and movement of humanity and reality as a whole.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Those who believe in religion but are revolutionary should be struggled with


....Wait, by 'struggled with' are you referring to a struggle session?

[Vogel]

Tim Redd, I don't suppose you know much about the historicity behind religious figures? In Christianity, there is a belief that Jesus is fully man and fully god, and that developed over, shall we say, a long time. But churches almost always look at just the godly part. If you look at the historical man, you might find he was more revolutionary than you imagined. I liked Reza Aslan's (A 20 year PhD studier of Religions) view of the historical Jesus, and he has also written about the Historical Muhammadif you are interested.

https://vimeo.com/72784795 (About an hour, but it flies by)

and here is him kicking hidden CNN bigotry, with facts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw (A few minutes)

Fun videos to watch, plus very interesting discussions.

[Subversive]

Subversive, the first sentence of my answer to your message was referring to the fact that, while you can abolish laws, slavery, child labor, and so on, you cannot abolish spirituality as much as you cannot kill ideas. It’s the verb “abolish” that has nothing to do there. Or do you seriously think that introducing a law would suddenly make spirituality vanish? Am I being too literal again?
As Rudolph pointed out, there's some irony here. You suggest we can abolish slavery, child labor, "and so on", but suddenly we can't abolish "spirituality"? These are all but ideas, so you can indeed abolish them all or abolish none. Pick your argument.

And I did not mean abolish by law, I meant, explicitly, abolish by force.
As in, the explicit genocide of explicitly 'people of faith'. As such demonstrated in China's 'Cultural Revolution' period.



The second reason why your statement is nonsensical would be obvious to you if you had basic knowledge of set theory.
That isn't an actual argument. That is, in fact, merely an ad hominem.
The following would only be a straw man, as well.

Example:

Religious and non-religious philosophy are part of philosophy. If I remove religious philosophy, does that make philosophy disappear?
There is no way I can properly reply to this nonsense because it isn't what I was suggesting. It is merely your own ignorance of what I said. A creation of your own argument which has nothing to do with mine.

Try to stay focused.



Your attempt to save yourself with the assertion that “no one could easily make a distinction between religious philosophy and philosophy” is pitiful, after you yourself stated that we have to see “religious-Philosophy as a type of Philosophy”. I need not to comment further on that.
Why don't you need to comment further? Why is this "pitiful"?
You do not actually make an argument, then suggest you don't even need to make an argument. If anything is "pitiful" here it is your ignorance and inability to argue properly.

It is truth that if you tried to make laws against religious-Philosophies you would only end up integrating traditional Philosophies in with them and therefore abolishing both. How would you make a distinction?
And even if you could make a distinction, WHY would you?

Make an actual point for once.



Needless to say, spirituality and religious philosophy aren’t synonyms.
I never said they were.



What about SBNR?
What about it?



It is you who is constantly redefining words, inventing new spellings, being obscure and vague, and asking people to make something rational out of something that is obviously not.
I defined words within a very explicit context. This is a legitimate thing to do. Pretty much all academic writings do this. Sometimes things cannot properly be conveyed without creating new definitions - that's sort of what language is for, you know? I am not going to give you anymore English lessons, you should already know this. Your argument to imply it is not a legitimate thing to do is merely ignorance on your part.

Furthermore, you won't find any "new spellings" in my text. That is merely a demonstration that you are, in fact, merely lying to discredit me.

If you think I have been "obscure and vague", then why not ask for clarification instead of attempting to attack me? I would have been more than willing to clarify anything I said. Do you not know how mature debate works? Do you regularly jump to conclusions about people and their arguments instead of trying to understand them first? It is pitiful.

Needless to say, lies and attacks like you just used are the only non-legitimate form of argument between us. If you wish for there to be maturity in such a discussion I would suggest you get some.

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by: "make something rational out of something that is obviously not." Are you suggesting that religious Philosophies cannot be rational?
So are you arguing that, for example, the teachings of Jesus to give away wealth to the poor, to 'love thy neighbor', to respect, accept, and forgive people for their mistakes is somehow irrational?
If not, then what ARE you saying? You are the only one being "vague and obscure" here. You won't even back up your arguments. You comment suggesting you don't even need to. Pathetic!

You are being extremely dishonest and hypocritical. If you have a real point you should make it.



That’s a weak argument.
You're one to judge. You literally have no real argument as of yet. You are merely demonstrating a bias against me for arguing in defense of religion, something you are obviously very biased against. You have so far only made claims, obviously biased claims, and not even attempted to understand or consider anything I have stated yet.
When getting to the point of where my arguments clearly contradict the point you want to make you merely dismiss them and suggest you don't even need to make any counter-argument, as if that were really a legitimate or valid argument.



All principles on which humanitarianism rely can be found without Jesus or any other prophet’s help. Getting rid of Jesus would not lead to the disappearance of humanitarianism, and one does not need religious philosophy to come to similar conclusions about love, forgiveness, etc. Jesus wasn’t making unique discoveries with his “teachings” and he wasn’t the first neither the last to show up with a set of ethical principles.
You entirely miss the point, though.
Humanitarianism is not equal to Jesus's teachings. You probably accept that much since that is the entire point of your paragraph above, that they are not the same thing. You also stated it, exactly, in the following paragraph: "Besides, what Jesus taught was not humanitarianism." So I don't attempt to squirm out of this one later when the argument doesn't go your way.

Therefore, what you freely, willingly, wish to dismiss and ignore, due only to your extreme bias, is that some people might actually benefit from the qualities of Jesus's teachings (or any other religious-Philosophy) and not benefit as much from Humanitarianism.

Might someone else benefit from Humanitarianism more than Jesus? Sure. You are essentially attempting to argue this point yourself. The hypocrisy is demonstrated when you imply this is somehow a one-way street. That all religious-Philosophy is bad Philosophy.

Your bias is extremely clear and it is only leading you into ignorance.
Where is your argument? If you have an argument to make that all religious-Philosophy is 'bad Philosophy' then make that point clear, don't just hide it vainly behind a wall of fallacies. If you want to make a REAL point stop being such a coward about it.



There is as much hatred as love in the holy writings, as many wise sayings as absurdities. You only want to see the good things, I see both positive and negative, and come to the conclusion that we need neither those texts nor faith to reproduce and develop the good things.
Well Boohoo. As you might plainly know by now, millions upon millions of people disagree with you. And a revolution to dissolve Capitalism is not going to suddenly and immediately dissolve these people's beliefs. So you have a problem on your hands - you want all religion to be dissolved but have not as of yet presented a valid argument as to why or how religion will be dissolved under revolution. How this force, who will fight for their beliefs to the death, will be countered and dealt with under a revolutionary exchange of power.

So what do YOU plan to do about this problem?
You cannot just tell everyone "Hey guy, be Humanists and you'll be fine." Think that will really stop rebellion when you ban their religion and burn their holy texts and their Churches? Good luck with that, kid.



Don't worry for those poor Christians, I'm not planning an "atheist crusade" against them, like the most fanatic among them did centuries ago against Cathars, Muslims, etc.
Oh, that's right. You're just going to pretend they don't exist while you use laws to ban their beliefs and attempt to eliminate their power and threat to the Dictatorship.
Yeah, sure, that isn't an "atheist crusade", wink wink.

Or are you stating you'll just ignore them and allow them to be a remaining reactionary force during the revolutionary period? Is that really what you want?
Or are you just suggesting that you, 'personally', won't be doing this crusade? Because, having seen your previous dishonesty, I would not be surprised if this is what you meant.



For definitions, just buy a dictionary. I could question every single word of all messages posted on this board the way you do: how do you define “I”, how do you define “thinking”, how do you define “the wrong way”, how do you define “defining”, how do you define “exactly”, etc.?
You're being obtuse, naive, and ignorant.
I gave you clear reasons why your definitions needed to be clearly defined, and why it means the end of your entire argument if you can't define them.

Since you don't define them, I only assume you admit this argument of yours was meritless nonsense. Which is completely consistent with all your other arguments, so I think this works.

Furthermore, you seemed to imply earlier you thought that defining your terms in context was a 'bad' or 'wrong' thing to do, since you accused me of it in some nonsensical way. So I can only assume that you are just generally confused about how communication works, in general. I suggest you go take some 'English classes', maybe.


hem_day, inevitably you are attempting to discuss everything in terms of theoretical positions, which is why you think I was speaking of Relativism, why you refuse to understand the necessity for explicitly defined terms, why you refuse to acknowledge the need for understanding in a time of revolution, why you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of a likely reactionary force, and etc., but I am talking about real practice. A real-life revolution. How things must really work to prevent real-life forces from gaining momentum and using it to eliminate a fragile new government.
Your terms are not practical and your theories are ill-defined. Your baseless arguments, based only in bias and ignorance, are meaningless to the practical nature of a revolution. Not only that, but they are meaningless even to theoretical argument - you refuse to even acknowledge basic concepts simply because they don't suit your point and your delusions. You dismiss them for no reasons.

[Subversive]

On the contrary, revolutionaries grossly understate its importance. Atheism without Communism, as Marx understood it was an impossibility.
I'd love to see a citation for this. To be honest, I really don't think it exists at all. I think you are mistaken.

Perhaps you meant Lenin, not Marx. It was Lenin who believed that Atheism was inseparable from Marxism. I'm pretty sure Marx never even spoke of Atheism.



Or, in other words, atheism without the revolutionary movement is an abstraction. Atheism is not an identity in itself which is merely a part of being a revolutionary, but an irrevocable characterization of our movement as a rejection of all worldly legitimization of the present epoch.
That's a good floundering of the word 'Atheism'.
However, Atheism is not an astraction, it is a real thing. If is in fact an identity in itself.
A better word for what you're thinking of might be 'Secularism'. It better constitutes what Marx spoke of. I could agree that Secularism is inseparable from the cause.
Atheism? No, I don't think I could agree with that even if you do redefine it in this way. There are too many connotations lingering about from this term. I'm not sure of which of these connotations you are accepting in this new definition, if any.

So I agree to what you're saying, I think, but I disagree to the terminology due to possible implications.


Only Communism is atheistic, for to be without a god not only necessitates a lack of belief in one, but to be boundless in being from the gods of our present order: the idols of the family, the altars of the state.
Communism isn't an entity, it cannot possess or dispossess a god.
You mean 'secular'. Communism can be secular and therefore not be presenting of a god, thus giving 'gods' no power or authority to the People.

So again, I think you're using the wrong term. 'Secular' fits better in every way and doesn't linger on those implications. Implications you might not even intend.

These implications being the misguided ignorance of revolutionaries who truly want Atheism to preside over the new Communist government, over the Dictatorship. These implications are arguments made like those of hem day, above. Some sort of meta-religious-rule of a new type of pseudo-Proletariat. It is strangely reminiscent of a cult. It is surely not Communism, and certainly not a true Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The DotP should be secular, as a means to discourage, root out, and destroy religion as an influential power, but it should not in itself be Atheist, as that would only encourage and employ a certain type of religious-belief as having sole power. Certainly people can define Atheism as a 'non-belief', but ultimately the way people in the modern world hold on to it, the way it is treated in the Capitalist system, is that which resembles a religion in and of itself, a certain religious-belief with many of its own standards, traditions, and dogmas. And in being so it is not fit to be a part of the Communist Revolution. The DotP must stay away from it, exclude it, just as it excludes all religious-influence.

So these implications are something the Communist should stay away from, lest there be the same problems occurring as those of the USSR and the so-called 'Communist China'.


Atheism is important not because of what atheism qualifies someone as, but because of what a lack of atheism implies for a person.
This is silly thinking, and the root of why you might choose the word 'Atheism' over 'Secularism'.
An Atheist, like anyone else inside of a Capitalist system, is just as prone to the same type of bourgeois-inspired irrationality as everyone else. By dismissing the existence of the religious-entity of God they are by no means dismissing the actual existence of one. The Bourgeois-inspired religion, their maintained 'Deism' as you called it, of the State-as-God, that the power-and-authority of a god resides in a higher-state of State, whether it be above the State and guiding it, or of the State itself, is by no means different for a religious person or a self-labeled Atheist.

Someone may call themselves an 'Atheist' in our modern world, but what does this mean? It is surely not to mean they throw away the bonds of bourgeois-religion. Many self-declared Atheists love the State, they embrace it. The State is their new God.

It is therefore by and only through Communism, within the revolutionary belief, in which someone is freed from this bond of bourgeois-religion. It is the first shackle which is thrown away, the religious-shackle. Not by means of throwing away religion, but only through the throwing away of State-religion, of the throwing away of God-as-State.

Thus you cannot have Atheism as a fundamental part of Communism anymore than you can have Christianity as a fundamental part of Communism, or any other religion. Like Atheism, Christianity also has its ties in embracing the Socialist-ideal. There are many concepts supportive of Communism within Christianity. But is Communism Christian in its concepts? Absolutely not. Likewise, Atheistic principles might match Communist principles, but is Communism Atheistic in its concepts? Again, absolutely not.
Communism is a secular force and must be only a secular force. It cannot approve or condone of Christianity, Atheism, or any other religious-belief. It cannot, ever, be supporting of only one perspective on reality other than itself as the one perspective on society.

It is thereby the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not composed of "Atheists", but composed of Individuals each with their own unique varying beliefs, all relishing in Truth, will free themselves completely from the bonds of all oppression.
They will, having shrugged off the first shackle of religious-State, will thereby break the chain of religion itself, and the bourgeois-priest will die. They will break the chain of political-religion, and the bourgeois-politician will die.They will break the chain of economic-religion, and the bourgeois-Capitalist will die. Finally they will break the chain of social-religion, and the bourgeois itself will die, and the State will die with it.

Thus, the Communist is not an Atheist. The Communist is much more than this, the Communist is a person free from the torture of State-religion!
Free from the bond which will set the motion to free all other bonds!

Don't you think this is a little more along the lines of what Marx actually stated?

Atheism does not pluck the imaginary flower. Atheism is merely the person which cannot find the imaginary flower to pluck, and therefore believes that there is nothing to be plucked. Religion is the imaginary flower which must be plucked, and it can only be plucked by those whom are free of the State concept of Religion. Thus, Religion without State influence is the true flower!
Whether it be the color of true Atheism, or be the color of true Christianity. The true flower is wholly different from those imagined by the minds under Capitalism. The chains which these imaginary flowers grow hold us all back from seeing the true flower, because we are merely embroiled upon the barren lands of Capitalism. No flowers grow here at all!



Of course this matters very little when it comes to the ignorant slum dweller or the South American peasant expressing their rage against their ruling class, (for this is a step closer to atheism than any new atheist is) for they are already unbound by the piousness, the hesitance of Christendom.
Exactly! But they are not just unbound by Christianity, but unbound by the very concept of Religion entirely, not bounded by what you call 'new atheism', but even unbound from Atheism itself!
The person who is conscious of their own plight, but not yet class conscious, is the one who sees the wasteland as a wasteland, sees their chains without flowers, and only knows not how to break them!
The revolutionary un-conscious is therefore not an atheist at all, but, like you explained, a person who identifies with non-identity, a person who exists as a complete abstraction. They are not the non-revolutionary Atheist, which is merely a piece of rock in a dredge of rocks, but they are the very lump of coal for which the revolutionary fires will burn!



The logical conclusion, however, or when push comes to shove is the complete renunciation of religion (in other words, when ignorance no longer reigns supreme). How could one devout their vitality to the destruction of those in power, to changing the world without renouncing the divine reflection of the world?
But in this act is the very nature of Religion!
That is what both the reactionary-Atheist and the revolutionary-Atheist do not yet understand.

It is in this very act, the destruction of old-religion, which brings forth new Religion and the elimination of old-ignorances. It is the very birth of the concept of Religion.

Paganism born out of the flames of primitive-confusion.
Judaism born out of the flames of Paganism.
Christianity is born from out of the flames of Judaism.
Protestantism is born out of the flames of Catholicism.
Islam born out of the flames of Christianity.
Buddhism born out of the flames of materialism.
Confucianism born out of the flames of political chaos and disorder.
Taoism born out of the flames of Confucianism.
(New) Atheism born out of the flames of the Abrahamic faiths.

It is all revolutionary-thought. The renunciation of the old-world order and a creation of a new one.
It is merely primitive to the greater concept of Communism. This is why Communism is not, and cannot be, "Atheist". It is something much, much greater than Religion. It is that which transcends Religion, destroying it in the process, and renewing it as something greater, something better.

I'm not speaking of reactionary-religion returning back after the establishment of Communism. I am speaking, strictly, of a newfound means of understanding old-religion. A doing-away-with of the old ignorances of old Religion and the fundamental re-understanding of what something means to be 'a Religion'. The new post-revolutionary concept of Religion.

We have never yet seen the true flower in its full beauty. Some of us might have glimpsed them, but our eyes are blurry from the dark caves in which we dwell and the clouded barren wastelands in which we toil. We have only imagined them thus far, and on the chains of our oppression so as to make them more beautiful to bear for us. Thus, Communism must not only pluck the imaginary flower, destroying it completely, destroying the chains in the process, but it will also show us the fields where real flowers grow.

Communism is not inherently Atheist because Atheism is merely the sight of chains as if those very chains were the flowers! The reactionary Atheist is the mind which does not grow flowers on the chains so as to make them more beautiful but to make the chains themselves beautiful.
The revolutionary-Atheist is merely the revolutionary, as are all revolutionaries regardless of religious-belief. It does not matter what imaginary-flowers once were, who had them and who plucked them. For this act is but an act of internal-vanity. It is fruitless without the act of cutting the chains in which those imaginary flowers once grew!

A revolutionary man who once consumed opium is still a revolutionary man.
And a revolutionary man who is so pained by chains that he takes opiates to dull his pain, but still maintains the revolutionary fervor, is still a revolutionary man. And it is those opiates, the very fact he feels less pain, which, in fact, may even allow him to shrug off the bullets of his enemies and to conquer them even if it so means his death. It is those opiates which may prevent him from the fear of the death that the Atheist man might fear. Because to the opiated man, it is his very freedom. To the Atheist man it is his doom.

And so, you should not see the religious-revolutionary as not being revolutionary. You should not see Communism as requiring Atheism.

Communism itself is inherently secular, as in it does not favor religious-belief. So as that means, by its very nature of being Communist, that the revolution should, too, not favor religious-belief in particular but claim the revolutionary-individual as its own, not due to what is illusory or not, but due to only being revolutionary.
For the revolutionary-individual is not yet free of illusion only if he is free of a God. And a revolutionary-individual is not even free when free of the illusions of Religion. The Capitalist system has developed illusions over all society, over many aspects, over long periods of time. The very question of 'What is real and what is not real?' is, in itself, an illusion. For the revolutionary-man who believes he knows what is real is under the illusion that he is under no illusion. Thus, does the Atheist-individual know his illusions or not? Can he know them anymore than the Religious-individual?

It is assumed by nature of plucking of these flowers that he is free of illusions because he sees the chains, but it is by that very act which causes him to be under the illusion that he sees things clearly. It is by this very declaration of freedom in which reinforces the fact that he has not yet learned what it means to be free.
It is therefore the religious-revolutionary, whom sees both the imaginary flowers and the chains, who can say, rightfully, that they are 'not free', and that they truly want freedom.

Know this: If you pluck the imaginary flowers from the chains of another person, are they seeing you plucking their flowers? No. They only see you imagining that you are plucking their flowers. Thus the Atheist is not plucking anyone's flowers but his own. And in doing so, he is forgetting the truth: That these flowers are not real; That there is no need to pluck them.

So the revolutionary-Atheist who believes he must pluck flowers is merely the revolutionary who still does not yet truly understand revolution. And the revolutionary-Atheist who sees the flowers are imaginary, and who has plucked his own flowers, and then sees that the chain must be broken, is only a revolutionary, not any different than the revolutionary who sees the flowers and ignores them in order to focus on cutting the chain.

Communism is not about plucking flowers, it is about cutting chains. When those chains are gone there are real flowers to be seen, plucked, and held. Therefore, Communism is not atheist, it is secular. It does not require abstraction, it requires practice. Communism intentionally ignores illusions, casts them aside, so that it might concentrate on what is real: the chain.

As Marx once stated:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
So, finally: it is not the flowers which matter at all, it is only the chains. Breaking the chains, which create the illusions, is the only thing that will create change.

Edit: Sorry for rambling on about the same thing forever. Oddly I find it fun to talk about religion. It's strange.

[Rafiq]

I'd love to see a citation for this. To be honest, I really don't think it exists at all. I think you are mistaken.

Perhaps you meant Lenin, not Marx. It was Lenin who believed that Atheism was inseparable from Marxism. I'm pretty sure Marx never even spoke of Atheism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.


It is without doubt that Marxism is atheistic, and that atheism is a pre-requisite to being a Marxist (how could one being a Marxist in any meaningful sense without being a materialist through and through? It is impossible!) This is not particularly unique to Lenin. What Lenin said was that being an atheist was a prerequisite to being a socialist. Marx spoke little of atheism if we compare him to the rhetoric of the new atheist movement or the intensity of the religious reaction, as during Marx's time the matter of atheism had already been settled, through Feuerbach and the emergence of materialism, with the sophistication of the sciences and so on. The power of the church and the idea of a god's power no longer was sustained by reason but by ideology. Some have characterized Marx as a post-atheist wherein the heart and soul of religion and the notion of a god had already been destroyed within the realm of the highest expression of the intellectual apparatus of society. Atheism being an abstraction and a "real thing", or a professed identity in the sense that you claim it to be is not mutually exclusive. The point is that the idea of a god, not just fear or respect for the power of the state but a divine reflection of our present epoch, and a universal consciousness is not even remotely close to being challenged by the mere identification of the idea that there is no god. This is why atheism is an abstraction without Communism - it is a re-formulation of divine belief (bourgeois-deism) on different semantic terms, it is soulless, and hollow without Communism. Thus, it is an abstraction with no consequential bearing in reality. No wonder scum like Sam Harris still leave room and are invested in forms of spiritualism, and it is no wonder why many new atheists are still, even on a metaphysical level, profoundly idealist.

When Feuerbach said that without Communism, one cannot have a heart, this was not a pretension to cheap sentimentalism or the necessity of "filling the ethical void" in the absence of a god, he quite literally meant that the ideological substrate (heart) which can sustain atheism, or a criticism of religion, is impossible, and devoid of vitality without Communism.

So when it is said that Communism is inherently atheistic, all this means is not claimant to neutrality on the question of a god (such neutrality is impossible anyway), but a vital rejection of the notion of a god in practice. Many Russian reactionaries, associates of Dostoevsky during the late 19th century attempted to trace the original sin of modernism in Western Christianity, beginning with Catholicism, which birthed the greater hearsay of Protestantism, finally concluding itself in atheist Socialism. Why point this out? Because atheism is more about consciously recognizing there is no god (obvious to any dolt). It rests on the necessity of being pathologically devoid of a god, as a psychological expression of an order of things - which in retrospect indeed began with the Christian imposition of universalism. Conversely, secularism itself is sustained by the pre-condition of religious ideological dominance, i.e. the sacred is a pre-condition to the secular. This is why secularism was directly articulated by Marx as the the aufheben of the Christian state, why the Communist movement cannot simply be irreligious but anti-religious. For Marx, secularism was already the spiritual heir to the state and society with regard for religion in bourgeois society, for him, Communism (inherently atheist) was the aufheben of secularism.


Communism isn't an entity, it cannot possess or dispossess a god.
You mean 'secular'. Communism can be secular and therefore not be presenting of a god, thus giving 'gods' no power or authority to the People.

These implications being the misguided ignorance of revolutionaries who truly want Atheism to preside over the new Communist government, over the Dictatorship. These implications are arguments made like those of hem day, above. Some sort of meta-religious-rule of a new type of pseudo-Proletariat. It is strangely reminiscent of a cult. It is surely not Communism, and certainly not a true Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


What is critically misunderstood here is the fact that Communism is a process, a living process which continually perpetuates the non-existence of a god into its very edifice. So to speak, Communism itself in its ideological composure does not care about the idea of a god while at the same time being the living, breathing embodiment of an insistence of a recognition of its non-existence. Communism is affirmatively atheist in that there is no room for the idea of a god in Communism. Conversely, a negative atheism would have to consciously incorporate, by merit of being an abstraction, the idea of there being no god consciously and willfully. But the ideological power of Communism literally renders such questions almost an impossibility, a ridiculous question. The Communist does not have an atheist superego, because atheism is already within the edifice of Communism as a force. In other words, in the process of fighting against the existing order, there is no longer room for a god, or at least the god which can be possibly believed in.

All creative forms of spirituality, from new age thought to pantheism do not present us with uniquely new divine figures, their gods are still psychologically the same god of all creeds in bourgeois society, albeit consciously expressed differently, as abstractions. During the rise of Mohommad's empire, he and his followers were in their own way right: There is only one god, because there is only one possible society, or world through which a god can be reflected (interestingly enough, the idols of Mecca were not pagan figures subservient to a single religion but an eclectic assortment of divine figures form a wide array of different cultures and societies, an interesting analogy for so-called religious pluralism in 21st century liberal democratic societies). The pathological insistence of the idea of a god in its expression for our society one and the same, or to be more precise, it shares the same ideological function. Atheism does not have to be imposed by abiding by a superego, but this does not make Communism any less atheist, and furthermore the concerns of the imposition of atheist belief on the rest of society are in themselves stemmed from a reactionary psyche, much like the idea of black men raping white women en masse, of Communists "stealing" children from their parents to be raised by the state in such a sinister fashion and so on.

All in all, to talk of "atheism" in such a manner is done under the anxious backdrop of the recognition of religious pluralism being too vastly complex to be "ignorantly" done away with. The truth is that religion is not so complex at all in actuality, so much so to the point where even the philosophic, ethical, and logical components of a religion which can be analyzed from religion are only possible from an atheistic standpoint. Because religion's power precisely resides in ignorance of its own soul and constitution, otherwise, it is presented along with the multitude of other possible beliefs! And it is clear: There is a dissonance between the 'theoretical' canon of a religion and the power of a religion in society, among people. There is a difference between understanding and tolerating a religion. And do you not know? All of history has been the utter destruction of ancient forms of thought, of traditions carried on with unfathomable divine power vested in them. With each historic epoch these are wiped clean as though they never exist, and we are better off without them. With a god's eye view, what horrors one would dwell upon in seeing how in a few years deep-seated traditions which have lasted millenia in the East are simply broken down and disintegrated, from China to India. And anything which may pass through the crucible of the event firmly loses its form and retains only its content. This stems not from ignorance, for the real ignorance is the ignorance of the affirmative power of Communism, which triumphs sublimely over the sum-total of all religions in all historic epochs, vests in itself what legacy from them is worth entering through the inferno. Lenin said that only when one enriches themselves with the treasures of all of mankind can one be a Communist, he was right. The mere perception of the history of religion can be traced to a unitary gaze which codifies them all. Relativism is not only wrong, it is a lie in itself.


The DotP should be secular, as a means to discourage, root out, and destroy religion as an influential power, but it should not in itself be Atheist, as that would only encourage and employ a certain type of religious-belief as having sole power. Certainly people can define Atheism as a 'non-belief', but ultimately the way people in the modern world hold on to it, the way it is treated in the Capitalist system, is that which resembles a religion in and of itself, a certain religious-belief with many of its own standards, traditions, and dogmas. And in being so it is not fit to be a part of the Communist Revolution. The DotP must stay away from it, exclude it, just as it excludes all religious-influence.


Essentially, what you picture is a proletarian dictatorship which incorporates the superego of the hollow and meek new atheism violently. But this is an impossibility, atheism as an identity in itself is not atheism at all, it is a holistic retreat from religious reaction. It is impossible to consistently articulate the dichotomy of western philosophy, tradition or thought on grounds of theism or atheism. There are traditions whose founding fathers may have been either atheists or theists, Hegel was after all not an atheist. As I said before, Communism is atheist only insofar as it violently imposes the implications of a lack of atheism. Atheism is an irrevocable consequence of the struggle against society. The Bolsheviks did not care that the backward Muslims of central Asia were muslims in an abstract theoretical sense, but their very backwardness which was reflected by their religious ignorance. Atheism is more than just a disagreement in theory, it represents a real conflict in life.


lest there be the same problems occurring as those of the USSR and the so-called 'Communist China'.


What problems? Such problems are greatly over-exaggerated. The anti-religious policy of the USSR was, for the most part largely successful for what it aimed at. The only problem is the pathological aversion to the destruction of religion in both the "excessive" scenes of the cultural revolution and the demolition of churches in the USSR (and so on). Frankly, one could argue that the Soviets and the Chinese eventually became too tolerant of religion, as places of worship themselves were never completely outlawed. This isn't a problem in itself, the real problem is the mere internalization of this as problematic, which is solely moral and therefore solely ideological. What people don't understand is that the attack on religion was itself an attack on the clergy.


Someone may call themselves an 'Atheist' in our modern world, but what does this mean? It is surely not to mean they throw away the bonds of bourgeois-religion. Many self-declared Atheists love the State, they embrace it. The State is their new God.


Modern day atheism is an exhumed defense of bourgeois-rationality against the onslaught of religious reaction and degeneration. While an abstraction, the implications often translate into fighting the religious out of public domains of life, out of schools and so on. It would be not only erroneous, but reactionary to oppose them in this regard.


Not by means of throwing away religion, but only through the throwing away of State-religion, of the throwing away of God-as-State.


The point is that these are irrevocably synonymous.


Thus you cannot have Atheism as a fundamental part of Communism anymore than you can have Christianity as a fundamental part of Communism, or any other religion. Like Atheism, Christianity also has its ties in embracing the Socialist-ideal. There are many concepts supportive of Communism within Christianity. But is Communism Christian in its concepts? Absolutely not. Likewise, Atheistic principles might match Communist principles, but is Communism Atheistic in its concepts? Again, absolutely not.
Communism is a secular force and must be only a secular force. It cannot approve or condone of Christianity, Atheism, or any other religious-belief. It cannot, ever, be supporting of only one perspective on reality other than itself as the one perspective on society.


This necessarily pre-supposes a designation of the realm of the religious debate as being outside of the realm of the class struggle and "merely' about conflicting perspectives on society which we have no right to intrude upon, none of which being superior than the other by merit of them being lived, and experienced perspectives. It assumes religion to have no bearing in the world through which it is derived - and it would be just as erroneous to claim that Communism has no "right" to interfere regard to our sexual relations because after all, feminism and anti-feminism are just "ideas", or different perspectives rather than actual conditions of life. The point is that real atheism is irrevocably a part of Communism: Communism is the destruction of this "theological debate" by rendering it impossible. It is interesting that you mention Christianity, and while this might merely be semantics: Communism is inherently Christian if we compare it to other religions, and as Ernst Bloch recognized, one cannot be a true Christian without being an atheist, and vice versa. Such "perspectives" only have power by merit of their social existence. As a reflection of present-day antagonisms within capitalism, it is entirely nonsensical that they would persist. Communists not only take the "atheist" side of the debate, they render the debate itself ridiculous by superseding the "atheist side". in this sense, Communism is hyper-atheist! Or to put it bluntly, when Luther broke with the Catholic church, he did not do so with the intent of defending Orthodox Christianity - in his eyes, such a debate had already been settled. The fundamental point being that these perspectives have real implications with regard to life itself as well as the struggle for power, Communists not only expel them from existence, they expel all remnants of the previous order. It is not the engaged subject sustaining its own security by expelling that which would threaten its vision of the world, but an actual translation of this "subjective" disagreement objectively, whereby the class struggle becomes unavoidably visible. Communism is not sustained by being a "perspective" on things, for this perspective itself has its heart and sole in a real social existence and being, in a real struggle concerning existing relationships of power. The ideological subjectivity of Communism does not even exist, even if it is an ideology: Because the ideological composure of Communism is itself unfathomable to ruling ideology, with any attempt to codify it being a blatant reduction of its sublime power, at the level of language. Communism is not simply the retention of the secular state of bourgeois society, it is its supersession, thereby destroying both the secular and the sacred, reducing them into false dichotomies.

This was particularly difficult in Russia and China because the predispositions toward religion were peasant based, and the remnants of a previous feudal order with even peasant expressions of class struggle taking a religious form. Communism is not secular simply because it is irrevocably unable to be fully reconciled with any religion to the logical end, and vice versa. Only by merit of ignorance can the religious partake in the worker's movement, but with allegiance for the movement itself, in the process of struggling against the existing order over time, their religious reservations are corroded. Religion itself is a weakness, it is hesitance, the last stand of the existing order to have worldly justification and even Dubois of the black civil rights movement recognized how the sentimentalities of Christianity weakened the fighting spirit of the black community. To add, the dissonance created by Communism for the religious subject is dangerous as the void it creates in the heart of the ethical foundations of religion makes all things simultaneously forbidden and permitted. It leads to a poisonous state of uncertainty, which can have dangerous results on an ethical level.


It is thereby the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not composed of "Atheists", but composed of Individuals each with their own unique varying beliefs, all relishing in Truth, will free themselves completely from the bonds of all oppression.


Such unique "beliefs" as you are presenting them are mere abstractions: In other words, do you even know the implications of such "beliefs"? It is not as though they simply designate a difference in outward appearance. On paper, or in an abstract sense, no one would have a problem with this. Who cares about what people want to believe? The point is that in practice this is an impossibility, it itself is a convenient abstraction which serves to repress the images of the stormy destruction of religion or conformity with the cliche ideas of Communists "forcing their beliefs" on everyone.


Thus, Religion without State influence is the true flower!
Whether it be the color of true Atheism, or be the color of true Christianity. The true flower is wholly different from those imagined by the minds under Capitalism. The chains which these imaginary flowers grow hold us all back from seeing the true flower, because we are merely embroiled upon the barren lands of Capitalism. No flowers grow here at all!


This is a game of picking and choosing, it is impossible for religion to exist without the state apparatus which supports it, it would otherwise be nothing short of a backwoods cult in terms power. Religion is irrevocably a part of state power, and religion without the pervasive influence of the state is reaction, a pretense and insistence towards an old state of affairs - or an older state. You cannot pick and choose what you want out of it: The power of religion is grounded in the power of the state, in the power of our relations to production - not in ideas which people find attractive or repulsive by merit of individual belief. Religion cannot be devoid of state influence because it is part of the state influence itself, and religion which assumes a revolutionary character, as it was in South America, is only able to do so irrationally as an embodiment of "uneven" forms of capitalist development. It stems from a lack of disciplined, internationally coordinated struggle. Religious struggle which is anti-capitalist, or an expression of the exploited would be an impossibility in any advanced capitalist nation, it cannot exist and will never exist. It is not that atheism and religion are just as predisposed to Communism equally, it is that they are both unpredisposed to it by merit of the fact that such "atheism" is a mere abstraction from the domain of the religious universe.


Exactly! But they are not just unbound by Christianity, but unbound by the very concept of Religion entirely, not bounded by what you call 'new atheism', but even unbound from Atheism itself!


This, however, stems from nothing more than confusion: they cannot be bounded by "new atheism" or atheism because such a dichotomy does not exist for them. If it did, they would most certainly be atheists. The point is that they take the outward expression of Christianity and refine it in terms of class struggle, but in practice they are unbound by that which characterizes and defines Christianity. So the existence is essentially irrational and predisposed to a definitive orientation, whether it is bounded to Christianity or its complete renunciation through atheism. One cannot "unbound" by both Christianity and atheism, one cannot even be bound or unbound from atheism at all - because atheism itself represents the avowed rejection of religion. It is not, as you are suggesting a "religious belief", it is no religious belief, it is an insistence on the destruction of religion entirely. One does NOT have to take a spiritual position to reject the spiritual. One does not have to be superstitious to attack superstition.


But in this act is the very nature of Religion!
It is in this very act, the destruction of old-religion, which brings forth new Religion and the elimination of old-ignorances. It is the very birth of the concept of Religion.


This is only works if Communism designates a new class society and a new ruling class. The religious revolutions mentioned were only religious revolutions insofar as they expressed definitive social interests, insofar as they existed under the backdrop of the destruction of a previous class society with a new one. Communism, in supersession to the altars of bourgeois reason, So you have it entirely wrong: The abrahamic faiths have been burned long ago before the altars of bourgeois reason, the fact is that such reason had degenerated. Present expressions of the abrahamic faith have nothing to do with the expression of Christiantiy, Islam or Judaism as it existed before the religious reaction which followed neoliberalism. Communists don't need to burn abrahamic religions in the fires of history, they have already burned (the leading epitomes of reason in our society are NOT religious people, they are deists, atheists, agnostics among other irreligious): It is bourgeois-rationalism which now burns, which is now superseded. So much so that religious conviction isn't even characteristic of ruling ideology or religion in our society; We have more of a spontaneous affinity with a twisted kind of deism of which all religions adhere to in one way or another.


I'm not speaking of reactionary-religion returning back after the establishment of Communism. I am speaking, strictly, of a newfound means of understanding old-religion. A doing-away-with of the old ignorances of old Religion and the fundamental re-understanding of what something means to be 'a Religion'. The new post-revolutionary concept of Religion.


It is clear that beyond the phraseology and pretensions to the "new", this is clearly reactionary. To characterize even the achievements of bourgeois society with regard to religion as "old ignorances" is identifying to the religious reaction to it, no matter how it is phrased or outwardly identified. There is nothing deeply profound about religion: religion can only function en masse by a lack of education, public infer-structure, and the existence of mass-ignorance. This is well documented, as places with higher and more sophisticated education always have higher non-religious demographics. What "new" understanding of this is to be derived, in your mind? Behind all of the rhetoric, what are the immediate implications of this? A new understanding of religion would be as we understand Shamanism today.


The revolutionary-Atheist is merely the revolutionary, as are all revolutionaries regardless of religious-belief.


Religion being the divine reflection of our present order, which by merit of its existence disqualifies any revolutionary predispositions within capitalism. What you fail to understand is that capitalism has already effectively displaced religion to a completely reactionary role - ideology in capitalism does not take the form of religion as it did in previous epochs, religion is merely a tool to which such ideology is reinforced. That is why new ideology will not be a new religion. This is why it might "appear" that atheists and religious people are just as predisposed to being revolutionaries, but the reality is that a religious person is just as predisposed to be a revolutionary as an American libertarian. It is meta-ideology, it is the righteous reinforced ignorance, the cancerous machine of the mind which violently reinforces ruling ideology through mystification of reality. Religion has a role in capitalism that it never previously had, and this role is to mediate ideology or to regulate the harsh effects of capitalist displacement. Previously, religion WAS the ideology, and it was impossible to think outside of the category of "religion" - so much so that religious discussion was itself synonymous with philosophical, intellectual discussion and whatever was a semblance of being science in such societies. We are a long way ahead of this now.

Communism is not about plucking flowers, it is about cutting chains. When those chains are gone there are real flowers to be seen, plucked, and held. Therefore, Communism is not atheist, it is secular. It does not require abstraction, it requires practice. Communism intentionally ignores illusions, casts them aside, so that it might concentrate on what is real: the chain.


As Marx once stated:

So, finally: it is not the flowers which matter at all, it is only the chains. Breaking the chains, which create the illusions, is the only thing that will create change.


At the same time, reinforcing these illusions greatly hinders any attempt to break the chains themselves. And to be clear, the point of Marx wasn't one of anti-intellectualism, it was a call for philosophy to be integrated into the revolutionary process itself, rather than uncritically accepting things as they are.

[Rudolf]

What if a natural disaster wipes out the entire human civilization but a little tribe in the Amazonas holding similar doctrine? Highly unlikely scenario, I know, but you cannot exclude it. How can you be sure that the old modes of production (at least in their broad outlines) would not reappear?

Isolated tribes in the Amazon lack the concept neither are they bound to the land like serfs. The prospect of serfdom and manorialism emerging as a serious social force is laughable. It's been superseded on an ideological level and productive-technological level.

Suppose though some cataclysmic event occurs.. i'm pretty sure that the few that will be secure are the bourgeoisie not some tribal peoples living in some backwater without advanced technology nor immense social power at their command. What then though, if the bourgeoisie are the sole survivors? Either their starvation or the dispossession of the weaker sections so as to form a new proletariat.




Just to add a question: from a Marxist point of view, how would you interpret the legacy of the divine rule of kings in countries like Saudi Arabia after their turn to the capitalist mode of production?

Im not a Marxist. I don't know much about Saudi Arabia but unless i'm mistaken the concept of divine right would be considered heresy within Islam.

[Subversive]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
Thanks, and I see where you got all of your wording from, but the problem with this is that 'atheism' is a well known concept in modern society and is completely different than the sort of Atheism that Marx was speaking of here.
In this Marx is using 'Atheism' to mean, as he explained, that it is the observation of man as the nature of man; the denial and rejection of the nature of man being God. Or, to express in other words, it is not the rejection of religious beliefs but the rejection of the existence of humanity being separate from itself.
For Marx this was important because it distinctly emphasized that history is therefore not a product of God, but a product of humanity. Something that human beings can, do, and will guide. Which therefore makes the Cause clear, and therefore explains the existence of the Cause as beginning with Marx's definition of "atheism": Because the Cause cannot exist without first accepting that man drives both past, present, and future events, and that God is not somehow guiding these things.



It is without doubt that Marxism is atheistic, and that atheism is a pre-requisite to being a Marxist (how could one being a Marxist in any meaningful sense without being a materialist through and through? It is impossible!)
These are many of the implications that I can't agree with, for many reasons.

The main error here is in the difference between Atheism, as the concept it is today, and the atheism Marx spoke of, is that it does not include a true understanding of religion, as that there are a multitude of religious beliefs which can accept that events are driven by humanity and not by divine forces. That even religions, such as Christianity, can have people within them that do not believe God has chosen the world to be fated to be Capitalistic, or that God has fated the world to form the US, or to empower Western Capitalist societies, and etc.

As well, Marx focused almost entirely on the concept of 'genesis' rather than simply the act of believing in religion itself (and it's worth noting that when referencing 'religion' it almost always focuses on Abrahamic faiths). According to this very text you refer to, he saw 'genesis' (therefore 'Creationism', which was historically a huge topic at the time) as the root of the problem. Therefore, it was not merely the belief in God, or Religion itself, he was speaking against but almost certainly the Creationists whom believed that, essentially, everything that is, was, and ever would be was a divine right, that all things were fated from the beginning to be the way they currently were.
The most important aspect of this is the 'supernatural God'. Something of which many religions do not even possess. A concept that some sects even within religions like Christianity have come to dismiss because of the nonsensical identity of 'Supernaturalism', creating for themselves a more materialistic God and belief.

Generally speaking, Marx was merely emphasizing the concept within his 'theory of alienation', which would be taken mostly from Feuerbach. The general theory of which is essential to the concept of social-consciousness.

So it is entirely plausible for someone to be a Marxist and not just a "materialist through and through". The concept of materialism is important to understanding Marxism, but only in so much as materialism is understood not that it need be necessarily accepted. There are, in fact, more than one kind of materialist views, and some of which would equally allow someone to accept Marxism and still maintain religious belief.
So long as the person understands his estrangement from his true nature, he is a Communist. You might suggest one cannot do this without abolishing all religious-belief entirely, but I disagree. I think you'd need to provide a better explanation of why you believe this.

And, if we're to escape purely Marxist views for a second and look only at theory:
Can you even think of a legitimate reason why a person who believes that the revolution is being guided by God cannot be a Communist?
They might be delusioned and estranged from themselves, but by all means they are still supportive of the Cause and intentionally focus on the Communist ideology. They may not completely understand some of its ideologies in detail, but since when does every Communist know every detail about Communist ideology? Their beliefs would not have to make sense, but is there even a single reason, at all, as to why they cannot properly take on the role of a Communist? I honestly can't think of a single one. By all definitions I can think of this person is rightfully defined as a Communist.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that in both Marx and Engel's writings there are comparisons between things like Early Christianity and the teachings of Jesus with the Communist movement. They do draw some similarities (as well as differences). And Marx does show a type of sympathy for religion in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, as well, written around the same time as the document you reference. So therefore, it can be seen that both Marx and Engels understood and appreciated religious-belief to some extent, even if ultimately they did condemn its existence as an obstacle to Communism.

My point being, you insist that Atheism and pure Materialism is a fundamental part to Communism, yet the very nature of this brings in far too many implications that it is clear Marx himself never stated, nor likely even wanted.

Marx very explicitly defined his religious terminology, like in this case with the term 'Atheism', for reasons exactly such as this; To remove and elimination any unnecessary implications.
So it is my belief that Marx did not want to completely abandon the religious, that he knew they, too, would be a fundamental part of the movement, and that he merely understood them in the way that they were merely the epitome of current social conditions.

In fact, Marx often denied the very term 'atheist' being applied to himself at times, which I believe intentionally because he wanted to prevent such implications of these connotations from becoming his own.

Here is a short, but decent, article I found on this very subject that I came across when researching to make sure my points were correct. I think it summarizes some of what I've stated and provides direct quotations from Marx, though honestly seems that added more to their conclusion than I would have liked. Still it seems a decent article, I guess: http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/atheism.htm


Marx spoke little of atheism if we compare him to the rhetoric of the new atheist movement or the intensity of the religious reaction, as during Marx's time the matter of atheism had already been settled, through Feuerbach and the emergence of materialism, with the sophistication of the sciences and so on.
What do you mean by 'the matter had already been settled'? To whom?
I'm pretty sure the masses would disagree with you, both then and now.
Marx was no fool, he did not ignore important subjects just because he thought they were 'settled'. If anything it would seem quite the opposite, that the matters which were believed to be 'settled' would be the ones he would most condemn! The very nature of which is Communism.

Religion was still very much a 'hot topic' of the day.


This is why atheism is an abstraction without Communism - it is a re-formulation of divine belief (bourgeois-deism) on different semantic terms, it is soulless, and hollow without Communism. Thus, it is an abstraction with no consequential bearing in reality. No wonder scum like Sam Harris still leave room and are invested in forms of spiritualism, and it is no wonder why many new atheists are still, even on a metaphysical level, profoundly idealist.
As I stated, yes, I agreed with you on the basis of that.
It is only within the hidden implications that I do not agree. These silly semantics which would allow you to drive one point and then one completely different in reasoning alongside it. Things which Marx himself never stated, but you inferred.
And while maybe, perhaps, you inferred correctly, and perhaps it is I who disagrees with Marx, but inevitably we have no factual basis for knowing. Marx wrote many things on religion, none of which gave a definitive view on exactly what he meant. I disagree that in the text you refer to he states things so clearly as you state. So, in my opinion, we are both to abandon Marx in order to form our own conclusions, ones based on reason and logic.

As such, ultimately I find that there is little reasoning to insist a simply Atheistic, purely materialistic world-view to be properly Communist. While there is, indeed, and I agree, many connections between the wrongful world-view and religion, one must still accept that a religious-person can still be of the belief that Communist revolution is necessary, exactly as Marx had defined it. There is nothing I can see, inherently in the basis of religious-belief alone, which would stop them.

As evidence, it is clear that there are various forms of religion which in fact approve of the Communist ideology. Such as, for example, Christian Communism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
Christian-Communism is exactly the point where Communism and the quality of Atheism, that Marx describe, conflict. But can you truly state these Christians are not truly Communists? Marx did not seem to predict the existence of such a group.

As well, it could easily be demonstrated there are no such problems between things like Buddhism and Communism, in that Buddhism is atheistic and perceives the (current) universe with a materialist-understanding.
So what prevents the Buddhist from Communism in any of Marx's writings? None of the things Marx even spoke of in the referenced article ever contradict fundamental Buddhist ideology.



So when it is said that Communism is inherently atheistic, all this means is not claimant to neutrality on the question of a god (such neutrality is impossible anyway), but a vital rejection of the notion of a god in practice.
Yes, that is what is stated at the conclusion of the article you linked to.
The problem with this is how exactly 'atheism' and 'god' are defined, which the rest of the article, and no less than the sum of all Marx's writings, can help us more greatly understand what is meant here. Of which, upon summing the totality of his works, I would be more open to believing that Marx even rejected the very Atheism of his day, as stated in the article I previously linked to. Thus, what he meant by 'Atheism' and 'God' were not these concepts in relation to the current-day understanding, nor even to the current-understanding of his own days, but the most abstract concepts possible.
An Atheism which denies everything above man as having or being related to man, that man is of himself and only himself and that if there are any forces above or below him then he is still, essentially, the essence of himself.
A God, whom is so abstract, that it is of any force which impacts the man so as to alienate the man from himself, to capture, imprison, and oppress him by the very nature of this relationship. This God can be Capitalism itself, the Bourgeois control, any form of social-oppression such as Racism, or Sexism, or the more obvious things such as the Fundamentalist Christian God, whom is the most supernatural and oppressive force one could probably imagine as a God.

These terms are therefore not rejected due to their nature of being obstacles to Communism, but due to the very nature that they are an obstacle between man and his true self.
This is not to mean that man, as a true self, cannot have religious beliefs, but that this man must be free, entirely, to pursue his own beliefs within regards to his freedom as opposed to his social-relationships which might otherwise define him.

Therefore, Marx is not just an Atheist. Atheism is an abstraction in the same way that all forms of oppressive relationships are an abstraction. The Atheist abstraction, as the negation of God, therefore cannot exist in reality, as in a practical form, without Communism because in itself it is merely that which is the very state of oppression of all other religions. It "no longer has meaning". A practice of Atheism, as the identity of the abstraction, is therefore "impossible".
This is not to state that Communism 'requires' Atheism, but that 'true Atheism' requires Communism, because without Communism it is merely a concept which is turned against itself by the system. Which, in fact, as are all Religions.
Which is to also mean that, it is possible that some other 'true Religions', ones built upon reasoning, eliminating the oppressive concepts of non-man, would be established in Communism, as well. Religions which are not built explicitly on Atheism, the rejection of God, but upon the concept that man is the essence of man.
As Marx stated in the very article you reference:

Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism.
So as Socialism "no longer mediated through the abolition of religion" will establish "man's positive reality".
He compares this with the abolition of private property, but what remains after private property is abolished? It is nothing less than 'true property', the very material of humanity's being!
So as such, the abolition of religion will destroy religion, and what will be left is nothing less than 'true religion', the very heart of humanity's being!

Communism is therefore nothing less than the negation of negation, the rejection of absolutely all falsehoods, and the establishment of the true form of reality:

Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.
Communism, as beginnining with the negation, is in fact the "negation of the negation". The rejection of the rejection.
Therefore the next stage in the process of "human emancipation and rehabilitation". What else would this mean but that 'True Religion' will come about from the death of all old Religion! That true reality will spring forth from the old?

Marx was therefore not stating the Communism is inherently Atheistic, but that it only begins with the concept of rejecting one's own alienation. To quote another article he wrote, that the revolutionary voice states: "I am nothing, but I must be everything!"
Therefore, one's rejection of alienation is the abstract concept, the social-Atheism, and the beginning of Communist-thought, but Communism is the true elimination of alienation, where man is man, and the beginning of humanity's renewal, wherein something even more abstract than all former society is created.
Wherein Atheism is the plucking of the imaginary flower, and Communism is the breaking of the chains, the renewal and emancipation is therefore the plucking of the tangible flower!


Conversely, secularism itself is sustained by the pre-condition of religious ideological dominance, i.e. the sacred is a pre-condition to the secular. This is why secularism was directly articulated by Marx as the the aufheben of the Christian state, why the Communist movement cannot simply be irreligious but anti-religious. For Marx, secularism was already the spiritual heir to the state and society with regard for religion in bourgeois society, for him, Communism (inherently atheist) was the aufheben of secularism.
Citation please. I've seen this but I can't remember where.

Marx, as we can clearly see, redefined "Atheism" in the text you have already cited. He turned Atheism from the current religious-context into an abstract concept devoid of the religious-implications of Atheist-thought.

Likewise, I think whatever you're referring to is likely the same. He rejected 'secularism' only on the basis that has other implications. He may simply have not turned it into an abstract concept, for whatever reasons.

Likely, the most prominent reason might be that Secularism implies only the State reject religion, and allows the man to be religious. In this implication the most obvious abstract might be that the State exists as State and man is still alienated. This would be entirely true for the Capitalist system.

However, if we abstract even further and understand it in the context of revolution, so as to understand that the State is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, this means that the Proletariat is openly rejecting alienation, as it should. Likewise, the non-Proletarian, the bourgeois man, will therefore be those whom embrace religion and thus see the DotP as the Divine Right. That 'God' has now placed them below the new ruling-class, the Proletariat.

This will only empower the Proletariat and diminish the reactionary-nature of the Bourgeoisie. The DotP will therefore have used Religion as a weapon against the Bourgeoisie just as the previous ruling classes had used it as a weapon against the Proletariat for millennia!

Surely there might be conflicts within the DotP, but that is the role of a Secular government, to eliminate those religious-conflicts within itself and determine a nonbiased course of action.

So it should be understood that a secular DotP would be 'more successful' than an anti-religious one. The reasoning should be very clear: it would not be prone to wild political-accusations, witch-hunts, persecutions or genocides, religion-supported reactionary movements, nor any of the other barbaric corruptions and general stupidity you get when you attempt to abolish something that people are very, very fond of.
You'll get a more pacified people, and belief-conflicts of all kinds would be tolerated in the government so as not to allow anyone the privilege of ruthlessly hunting out their political adversaries by means of political-advantage. Enough of that will happen in revolution without dealing with religious-abolishment.



What is critically misunderstood here is the fact that Communism is a process, a living process which continually perpetuates the non-existence of a god into its very edifice.
Yeah, I don't think so...

Marx was preoccupied with the real alienation of the individual, not of imaginary gods or flowers. He only spoke of these things as a means to convey social alienation. There is no value or meaning in 'perpetuating the non-existence of' an imaginary thing. Marx believes, fully, as I quoted earlier, that the point of Philosophy is not just to interpret things the way they are, but to create solutions to change them.

As such, you do not try to perpetuate and solidify a non-illusion. You get to the root of a problem and eliminate it. In this case the root of those illusions are alienation. Alienation which is driven from the Capitalist system and the rule of the bourgeoisie. Eliminating both Capitalism and the bourgeoisie frees humanity from their alienation. The illusion are gone due not to continuously driving away an illusion but by intentionally and continuously driving away the very source of all illusions.

You may pluck the imaginary flower, but in the mind it will regrow. And imaginary flowers grow much more quickly than real ones. So as criticism of religion, the rejection of God, the abolishment of religion, is only a means to penetrate the depth of religion to get to the heart and core of the illusion. To pluck the weed by its roots rather than by the leaves.


Communism is affirmatively atheist in that there is no room for the idea of a god in Communism.
There are so many needless and unnecessary implications when you say stuff like this.
The "idea of god" in the Communist sense, in the Marxist sense, is as I have already discussed, merely the concept of humanity's alienation.
And in that form, yes Communism has no room for it. But there is more than one form of alienation and it is not just from religion. Religious-alienation is, as Marx stated, merely the "sigh of the oppressed creature". It is therefore the result and product of a relationship, eliminated by removing the source of that relationship.

In plain sense, including all implications, you are suggesting that Communism should intentionally, "affirmatively", try to reject all religion because there is no room for any form of religion in Communist society. But what good does it do to try to eliminate the result of a relationship, the illusion, itself? Communist society will eliminate the source of the problem, the source of the illusion, so what would even be the point of "affirmatively" rejecting the illusion, the symptom of the source-problem?

Treating symptoms is only effective if the source of a problem cannot be rooted out. If we know someone is going to die from their disease we can only treat their symptoms so they feel better until the end. However, if we have any notion that they have a chance to survive then treating their symptoms, rather than the disease, is ultimately meaningless, especially when the treatments themselves do more harm than good. We must treat the disease, first and foremost. Then one can worry about the symptoms of the healing-process afterward.


In other words, in the process of fighting against the existing order, there is no longer room for a god, or at least the god which can be possibly believed in.
That is mere rhetoric, and it doubt it can be proven. You take the words of Marx and then add your own conclusions. And this all the result of these implications I have been speaking of.

Return back to the question of Christian-Communists. What realistically stops them from joining the 'process of fighting against the existing order'? The only thing I can imagine stopping them would be people like you, people who insist that they cannot do so. If enough people are of your same ideology then they could be a greater force, and rather than ending oppression they would only create it.


During the rise of Mohommad's empire, he and his followers were in their own way right: There is only one god, because there is only one possible society, or world through which a god can be reflected.
See? Even you are doing it. Connecting religious-ideology to the Communist movement.
Are these religious-sympathies now, therefore, products of your non-Communism?
If I follow everything you have said so far, yes, they are. Why? Because you're sympathizing with religion rather than abolishing and rejecting it completely.

You are not putting Athe into your orifice and worshiping the Communist god, but rather you are performing the blasphemy of sympathy for another religion!
Obviously I joke, but on a serious level this sympathy for religion ultimately demonstrates my point - that one can reject the alienation of man through religion. That the implications of "Communism requires Atheism" is a fraudulent source of understanding Communism. That Communism does not require Atheism nor the rejection of Religion, but that it only requires the understanding of humanity's alienation by the system. This, therefore, allows us to root out the weed rather than pluck its leaves. To drive out the illusion by the source of that illusion and not by hand-waving it away.

Nothing less, your sympathy shows that we are all human, and that religion is human nature. Even the most Communist-devoted of us, like you might be, is prone to this natural reflection.
A representation of the very reason why Marx did not enjoy the term 'Atheism' himself, as it lingered on ridiculous implications that were wholly not a part of Communist ideology. That the concept he used was not Atheism, but the abstraction of Atheist ideology, so as to destroy it and remake it as something different.



furthermore the concerns of the imposition of atheist belief on the rest of society are in themselves stemmed from a reactionary psyche, much like the idea of black men raping white women en masse, of Communists "stealing" children from their parents to be raised by the state in such a sinister fashion and so on.
Quite a claim you have there. However, the problem with this belief would become very obvious if I asked you to support this claim.

Needless to say, I'd like to see your evidence for this claim rather than the claim itself.

As I have previously explained, we have already see this very "imposition of atheist belief" on society in both the USSR and in the Cultural Revolution. While there are some good reasons why the USSR did what it did, it still cost these revolutions significantly. These "impositions of atheist belief" took a severe toll on not only the populaces, of which the many religious among them felt oppressed and terrified, but the revolutions themselves which would eventually succumb to the reactionary forces backed by most of the very same religious-identities in later years.

So go ahead, explain. A claim is worthless without an argument to support it.
As well, the bolder the claim the bolder the evidence needed.


With a god's eye view, what horrors one would dwell upon in seeing how in a few years deep-seated traditions which have lasted millenia in the East are simply broken down and disintegrated, from China to India. And anything which may pass through the crucible of the event firmly loses its form and retains only its content.
... What?


Relativism is not only wrong, it is a lie in itself.
I'd like to see you try to prove that.
Seems like another bold claim of yours that is rather unapproachable. I understand your point here, but I certainly can't see how you think anyone is just going to simply agree with it.
A non-argument is as equally non-convincing.



Essentially, what you picture is a proletarian dictatorship which incorporates the superego of the hollow and meek new atheism violently. But this is an impossibility, atheism as an identity in itself is not atheism at all, it is a holistic retreat from religious reaction.
This sort of rhetoric doesn't really mean anything when we see things, in real life, like the Cultural Revolution in China, coming about through Communist Revolution.
It hurts our Cause and, honestly, I think it would be very childish to ignore it. It certainly was not an 'impossibility', as all people who know history can plainly see.


As I said before, Communism is atheist only insofar as it violently imposes the implications of a lack of atheism.
Did you really mean "imposes" in this sentence? Maybe you meant 'opposes'?
This sort of seems to contradict everything you have been stating so far. And I've certainly not seen you say this before.


Atheism is an irrevocable consequence of the struggle against society.
Only when 'Atheism' is defined the way Marx defined it, as the rejection of man's alienation. Otherwise I disagree and still have yet to see any evidence to suggest otherwise.


Atheism is more than just a disagreement in theory, it represents a real conflict in life.
Again, in the Marxist sense.



What problems? Such problems are greatly over-exaggerated. The anti-religious policy of the USSR was, for the most part largely successful for what it aimed at. The only problem is the pathological aversion to the destruction of religion in both the "excessive" scenes of the cultural revolution and the demolition of churches in the USSR (and so on). Frankly, one could argue that the Soviets and the Chinese eventually became too tolerant of religion
One could also argue that you're insane. But nevertheless, I will save that argument for later.
Obviously I don't agree with anything you're stating.

Consequences and real-world problems resulted from both the USSR and the Cultural Revolution's anti-religious persecution. It gave the bourgeoisie more support and allowed them to gain much ground in reactionary-movement. Eventually this support would be a large piece of what would inevitably cause the dissolution of the USSR. It was also a very large part of what began to break apart Mao's power.

If you are not to look at this, historically, materialistically, realistically, then I guess there is nothing I can say to you to convince you otherwise. However, if you look at this factually, I don't think I am "over-exaggerating" the problems. Many people do, but I am not those people. I am merely pointing out the fact that there were indeed real-world consequences, and a massive amount of harm done to not only their own movements, but to the Communist cause itself. Can you honestly not see this?



as places of worship themselves were never completely outlawed.
That is definitely not what I would call "too tolerant" of religion. Not in a Marxist sense, not in any sense.



This isn't a problem in itself, the real problem is the mere internalization of this as problematic, which is solely moral and therefore solely ideological.
This problem is definitely not "solely moral" nor "solely ideological". Real people got hurt, and not just Capitalists, not just reactionaries. See below.


What people don't understand is that the attack on religion was itself an attack on the clergy.
But that is EXACTLY the problem. That is EXACTLY the problem I wish to avoid, to eliminate.
That the people do understand that the attack on the clergy is exactly that - an attack on the clergy.

The USSR and the Cultural Revolution were not specific to clergy. They caused real-world harm to religious individuals of all kinds, not just the clergy. This violence against the Proletariat was the loudest demonstration that the State was not acting in the interests of the Proletariat.

They might have done it to intentionally attack the clergy, just as the US sends drones to intentionally attack "terrorists", but inevitably what happens is collateral damage. This collateral damage was harm done to the Proletariat. This can be understood in terms of Capitalism, because they afford no protections to the Proletariat. But in a Communist Revolution? Harm done to the Proletariat by the hands of the State is the death of the revolution.



The point is that these are irrevocably synonymous.
If you believe that then I'm not sure what else to do. You are confused.
Throwing away of religion is different than throwing away of God-as-State.
The alienation of man, God-as-State, is not Religion but merely a part of Religion.

It is the not the core concept of Religion, or else Religion itself absolutely could not ever possess Communist ideology in itself. The very act, the very nature of being, of Religion inherently possessing Socialist-ideology in its core-teaching, or even anywhere within Religion at all, is contradictory to the notion that Religion is synonymous with God-as-State, with the alienation of man.

If Communism were requiring Atheism, not just the rejection of alienation but the rejection of religion as a whole, then what substance is Religion composed of that allows itself to hold Socialist-ideology, nor further, even Communist ideology?

Just look, look at Marx's Critique of the Philosophy of Right. In this does Marx not state that Religion is:

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.
Tell me, what then becomes of Feuerbach's heart, one you so-called 'Atheism', if Religion is the "heart of the heartless world"?
Tell me, how then is Religion synonymous with the alienation of man when in itself is the "expression of real suffering"?
Tell me, how does Communism exist without its very soul if both Religion and the alienation of man are, simultaneously, the "soul of soulless conditions"? If Communism rejects the heart and soul of society, then what is it but emptiness?

No, you are wrong. The alienation of man is distinct from Religion. It is a greater part of society of which can be abolished from Religion which allows both the "heart" and "soul" to remain. To no longer be a "sigh of the oppressed creature" but to be a sigh-of-relief of the free creature.

Religion, in the abstract, is therefore not a true alienation of man, but a force of which has been, itself, alienated from man! Something delivered by the very essence of Communism!
Therefore, Communism is not inherently Atheist, Communism is inherently truly religious!

I apologize for not responding to the rest of the post, but I've run out of time for today. I believe I have covered mostly everything, anyway.

[Rafiq]

Thanks, and I see where you got all of your wording from, but the problem with this is that 'atheism' is a well known concept in modern society and is completely different than the sort of Atheism that Marx was speaking of here.

The reality of the matter is that you're guising your innate aversion toward atheism as it exists today, within the context of real-existing religious dichotomy which exist today, through disassociating Marx, or at least Marxism with it. It would be like saying, for example, that feminism today isn't worth batting an eye for because when Marx referred to the upheaval of the fairer sex, the "connotations" were different then they are today. It is without doubt a reactionary pathology which fails to articulate that Marxism changes in accordance with new and different circumstances. The struggle against the religious reaction is inherent not only to Marxism but to Communism. And what you're saying is utterly fucking ridiculous: In your mind, Marx's atheism amounted to a recognition that there is no divine intervention in human history. Interesting, because this qualifies Hegel, and virtually every other thinker of the enlightenment too as atheists. What you fail to understand is that an explicit rejection of superstition and magic was already in place over a century before Marx wrote anything at all. This is not a qualification for atheism, even within the context of Marx's time. Of course atheism today is completely different than it was before, as is religion and virtually everything else. That the coordinates of struggle have expanded is not grounds for an argument that they have irrevocably changed, i.e. that religion has somehow changed in such a way that it is no longer condemnable. It serves the same, if not an even worse function in the 21st century. The "sort of atheism" Marx was speaking of was an explicit rejection of religion. Many apologists, reactionaries and opportunists have attempted to construe the militantly anti-religious nature of the Communist movement historically, or more specifically Marx's understanding of it by saying that Marx was actually sympathetic toward religion after all, recognizing it as an expression of hope for people in a shitty world. What they fail to recognize was that this was irrevocably a part of his criticism of religion itself. When Marx said that religion was the heart of a heartless world, he was not referring to an eternal state of mankind (Whereby Communism too isn't a heart), he was referring to a world which denies people of a direct relationship to the direct substance of their life-being, through which religion takes the role of legitimizing. This is not apologizing for religion, it is nothing even remotely close to being a sympathetic understanding of religion. The point of Marx is that destroying religion is impossible without destroying the conditions from which religion derives. The demand to abolish the conditions which require illusions has no room for the perpetuation of those illusions themselves. And how convenient of you to reduce materialism to merely recognizing the fact that magic doesn't exist in history: This is beyond fucking stupid. The point is simple: Religion derives as a reflection of the conditions of the world as it exists, man makes religion and not the other way around. If religion, historically, is articulated as the embodiment of a wide array of social interests, how the fuck can it be adhered to? If religion is de-mystified, how is the mystical power of religion sustained?

Atheism to which Marx was referring to was not only more radically anti-religious than the atheism of modern society, it was so much so that even the most ardent anti-theists would probably meet it with horror. One meets the destruction of religion with horror only in proportion to how they meet the destruction of existing society with horror, the destruction of old bonds of society and the destruction of existing relations to production. Religion as the heart of a heartless world means precisely religion as a reflection of the spiritual soul of the world, as a means of legitimizing the world through eternal truths, through the very edifice of the cosmos itself. With all of your attempts to white-wash Marx's atheism, you fail to explain how Marx violently opposed all religious influences on the working class movement if this isn't something he was particularly concerned with. And to be clear: No one is trying to convince you personally of anything, I could care less about what you think. The fact that I can't make a deliberate intrusion upon your very means of experience, the fact that I can't show you right in your face, unignorably truth means absolutely nothing. No human experiences directly so much that they can be "convinced" so easily. With the mentality that "I think this until I am literally forced to think otherwise by merit of experience", you'll think whatever you do to the grave. The fact is that what you espouse is wholly inconsistent and nonsensical. Whether you "agree" or not doesn't disqualify it as true. And what is true is not reducible to what we like to 'agree' with.


These are many of the implications that I can't agree with, for many reasons.


On the contrary, there is only a single meaningful reason, and it is precisely the fact that you're pathologically a reactionary festering in the lingering dried shit of religion, clinging on to an inherently religious sentimentality. The fact of the matter is not religion is not diverse, ideologically it serves the same function. The greatest myth of postmodernism is that there are multitudes of belief which reflect the multitudes of individual variation among humans. We've been over this before: The fact of the matter is that this is farthest from the truth as one can get, the variations of religious belief, actual religious belief, are only varied insofar as they reflect real social variation. The fact of the matter is that the "complexity" of religion is not owed at all to its theoretical legacy or the various religious texts that have accumulated throughout its according history, but to the power of our social relationships to each other. The idea that we can choose our beliefs is entirely nonsensical: By merit of the definition of a belief, it cannot be chosen, otherwise it is not a belief but a means of identification. The point for Marx is not the conservation or even respect towards the religious ecstasy of society, but its destruction through the power of the concrete mass ecstasy of the Communist movement. What the masses derive from religion, can be derived through Communism was the point through a lived struggle. The notion that Communism is "secular", that it is nothing more than an elaboration of the heartlessness of capitalism attempts to reconcile the ideas of Communism superficially with bourgeois ideology. The heart of the Communist movement is our lived relationships to each other, the very edifice of the struggle itself and consciousness of our condition. The "heart" of the heartless world is no longer even embodied in institutional religions, but to ecologically fetishistic ideology. This is why you can have "atheists" who prattle of spirituality and a plethora of new age drivel. It is today mother nature, not the idea of a god divorced from us, which is the opium of the masses. What you fail to understand with your muddied relativism is that truth can only be articulated not from the "unknown" dimension (for this already is an insistence of the known) but from the very struggle between real existing ideas. In other words, even if there was a god, the reason why people believe in a god today has nothing to do with its existence or nonexistence. It is grounded in social realities. So when it is said that there is no god, there is no god as far as we're concerned, the idea of a god is not some kind of spontaneous deduction derived from an empirical understanding of reality, its power is not derived from the power of reason but from its social necessity. Without these social realities, there is no reason for anyone to even think of the existence of a god.


is that it does not include a true understanding of religion


And here you prattling of "true" or "narrow minded" understandings of religion. It is you who does not fathom Marx's understanding of religion properly, it has nothing to with the inability to recognize that there are different religious beliefs: The point is that these "creative" beliefs you're referring to are, like new atheism, preferred abstractions with absolutely nothing of a semblance of being close to a genuine belief. Marx lived during a time wherein post-modernist drivel did not exist to the slightest, so "belief" was not something people individually "chose" because they would seem more interesting with them, it was something that was mediated solely on a social level. You did not have ordinary people going "Well I think this" or "I think that". The notion of a right to conceit is a relatively new one. The point is simple: One can identify with such ideas however tehy want and in whatever fashion. You can say that Mohommad is your prophet and Thor is your mother, unless you've a mental disorder there is absolutely no chance that you actually believe this is true. What you are doing is mixing and matching different beliefs which designate an identity and incorporating them into your appearance. Hence, "I believe this" replaces "this is true". Not only do you lack an understanding of how we recognize religion, you yourself lack an understanding of religion itself. Frankly, the notion that there has been divine intervention in human history since the enlightenment has always been reserved to the ignorant: it is only recently that such postmodern religious degeneracy has taken sway across the entire world (following neoliberalism). It is an affront to reason to even debate whether magic is real or not. As the forces of darkness slowly undue the achievements of the enlightenment, we have people like Subversive actually holding them to a definitive standard which ought to be taken seriously. Very well for those "Christians" who think that human history has been nothing more than human history, how generous of them to accept that the Earth is more than 7,000 years old or that the biblical stories aren't actually literal. How "open minded", how "modern" of them! The core of religious ignorance is not simply ignorance of scientific truths, it is a means of legitimizing our present condition, and inspiring unequivocal faith in ruling ideology, it is ignorance of consciousness of our existing conditions of life and the nature of power. The fact that you are attempting to find a redeeming quality of religion in a society wherein ruling ideas have already destroyed the spiritual soul of religion (as it had existed in previous epochs) is nothing short of reactionary.

The ethical, philosophic and logical dimension of religious beliefs, is completely divorced from the power of those beliefs. Do you even know what a religion is? It is not some kind of petty abstraction, it is a real existing mechanism which perpetuates ignorance under the backdrop of the achievements of present society. All religion, and I implore you, I dare you to provide me an example otherwise today serves a reactionary role. But of course, the creative abstractions of people, and the actual, worldly place of religion today concretely for Subversive and one and the same! How do you respond? "I disagree", or "I am unconvinced". I don't give a fuck about how you're not convinced! This is not how an argument works, if you want to confront my argument, you have to either demonstrate how what I am saying is wrong, or attack the alleged origin of why I am wrong. There is no big other, there is no big external gaze which you can rely on here: Confront me directly and tell me how I am wrong, or why you disagree. Those who demand "proof" and "evidence" at every which turn don't know how a fucking argument works - they are demanding a radical intrusion upon their vision which would force them to renounce their beliefs. For them, the very fact that ideology exists, or "different beliefs" exist, the very fact that one person can believe something so adamantly and another person can believe another in the same fashion means they are just as equally true. But people believe things for a reason, people find ideas more plausible and preferable to others for a definitive reason. This isn't reducible to "what I want to think" - the question is: WHY do you want to think this? A question you undoubtedly brush off in the face of the sanctity of religion. Oh, what a sob story you are! All of the religious scum together holding hands, the sheikhs and the child fondlers, the preachers of holy poison and filth, the scumfuck new agers, the innocent monks of Tibet, the "faithful" of the world conjoined together in mass orgasmic ecstasy, looking upwards to the heavens and praising the god of capital while dilluting the senses of people, while hijacking their spirits in service of the ruling order. "Ah, religion!" sais Subversive, the open minded ideologue, "So much we can learn from it!" - yes, we have learned. But let me ask you a simple question:

Had the religious not been violently uprooted from the state of society, would they be so "open minded"? Without the pressures of bourgeois modernity, without the violent intrusions of the scientific method, would these "religious" ideas you so adamantly defend still exist? No! You speak of the creative multitudes of religious beliefs, but why do those beliefs exist? Does it derive logically from the essence and foundation of religious belief, or are they forced to assume those beliefs to retain a sense of social normality, or simply because they couldn't even hold their religious beliefs because the reality right in front them radically contradicts them? These nice and sound religious beliefs you prattle of, whose role is to dilute the militancy of the damned, to make them pious and slave-like spiritually, had they not been violently uprooted would have continued hindering consciousness of the world, hindering the scientific achievements of civilization and keeping people oppressed. Tell me now Subversive, how do you divorce religion from the utterly sick and vile practice of religion? Through mere "ideas"? Abstractions which do nothing but ass cover the foundations of vile ignorant filth? The fact of the matter is that secularism was not some kind of easy route out, it came at the price of the violent destruction of religion from the sphere of the state, the weakening of the absolute power of the church. Such "religion" you prattle of is the spiritual ecstatic masturbation of our present condition and nothing more, and I challenge you to argue otherwise retaining a semblance of honesty. The greatest crime of the Bolsheviks is that they did not round up every last cleric, every last scoundrel who took advantage of people's ignorance and crucify them. And you speak of a "Marxist sense" of being too soft? What the fuck does this even mean? Tell me, if during the French revolution the bourgeois put the clerics to the guillotine, what makes you think we're going to back on this legacy? If this was already enshrined into bourgeois ideology, why would we condemn or oppose this if Communism derives from bourgeois society? Only a REACTIONARY would.


According to this very text you refer to, he saw 'genesis' (therefore 'Creationism', which was historically a huge topic at the time) as the root of the problem.

Are you fucking kidding me? Why do you blatantly make shit up? Marx used genesis allegorically, are you actually suggesting he was referring to his quarrel with the idea that this actually happened literally as it was posited in the Christian bible? Are you aware that Marx was writing in the 19th century, and not the 17th? You're literally making shit up!


The entire movement of history, just as its [communism’s] actual act of genesis – the birth act of its empirical existence – is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming. Whereas the still immature communism seeks an historical proof for itself – a proof in the realm of what already exists – among disconnected historical phenomena opposed to private property, tearing single phases from the historical process and focusing attention on them as proofs of its historical pedigree (a hobby-horse ridden hard especially by Cabet, Villegardelle, etc.). By so doing it simply makes clear that by far the greater part of this process contradicts its own claim, and that, if it has ever existed, precisely its being in the past refutes its pretension to reality.


Marx uses the word genesis allegorically.


The nature which develops in human history – the genesis of human society – is man’s real nature; hence nature as it develops through industry, even though in an estranged form, is true anthropological nature.


Marx isn't saying anything about "creationism" (which is a topic today solely because of the religious reaction of the late 20th century), what he was saying is that nature, or our understanding of nature is derived from our history, or the history of our relationships to each other.

Marx didn't even have to bother with the idea of "genesis", Marx's point at the very end of the section was that the idea, or the question of where "man and nature" derived from is nothing short an abstraction: Ask yourself how you arrived at that question. Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question

None of this is even close to being reconcilable not only with religion, but with any sympathies one might have for religion.


Generally speaking, Marx was merely emphasizing the concept within his 'theory of alienation', which would be taken mostly from Feuerbach. The general theory of which is essential to the concept of social-consciousness.


Which irrevocably relied on the recognition that there is no god, which irrevocably understood religion as a process of alienation. Or do you want to deny this? Let me as you what Marx would have asked you: If a religious person reconciled their utter shit with this fact, why would they? What propels them to have to reconcile their beliefs with this? What is the origin of their affinity for it, and what is the origin of their reluctance to disavow their religious beliefs? because we "all have different perspectives?" My fucking god.


The concept of materialism is important to understanding Marxism, but only in so much as materialism is understood not that it need be necessarily accepted. There are, in fact, more than one kind of materialist views, and some of which would equally allow someone to accept Marxism and still maintain religious belief.
So long as the person understands his estrangement from his true nature, he is a Communist. You might suggest one cannot do this without abolishing all religious-belief entirely, but I disagree. I think you'd need to provide a better explanation of why you believe this.


No, understanding materialism is a qualification for understanding materialism, not being a Marxist. Marxism is more than "understanding it", it is recognizing that it is true. There are many fierce critics of Marxism who might claim to understand it, and yet they do not accept it. I can't even fathom how this stupid fucking logic follows: One cannot be a semblance of being close to being a Marxist without being a materialist. You calim that there are "more than one kind of materialist views" and this stems from the same absolutely and utterly sickening post modernist presumptions that we can actually choose our fucking beliefs: I implore you and I ask quite simply - what are these different "types" of materialism, how do they qualify as materialism besides calling themselves as such, and furthermore, why would one hold them? The materialism of Marxism is not simply a recognizing that there is no god, it is a recognition that the idea of a god, as well as all religion derive not from "truth", or the real objective nature of the universe, but from our social relationships to each other, from a means of legitimizing our social existence. This alone makes religious belief irreconcilable with Marxism COMPLETELY, for religious belief has to presume that it is true, that it is an actual reflection of the objective world, that there is actually a "real god" and so on. How the fuck do you knit pick from a religion what you want to believe is true and what you don't? And why? And how does this any longer allow this to be the same "religion"? What CONSTITUTES the mere religious belief, is it the rituals and practices, or is it adhering to the "basic tenets" of a religion? And what CONSTITUTES those basic tenets, and why are they adhered to? If everything is taken as "metaphorical" or allegorical, is god too allegorical? What remains of this "religion"? Is heaven or hell too allegorical or metaphorical? How the fuck do you pick and choose? I'll tell you: The religion is conformed to our present standards of reason thereby eroding it. Religion today MEDIATES ruling ideology and is a means of legitimizing it, of justifying our present epoch through the perpetual means of ignoring and hampering critical thought. It consumes the very soul of men and women, instilling into them a definite fear of change, fear of action, fear of power. The miserable hell they live in is justified divinely, the existing order which is responsible for their condition is given divine legitimization. There is one thing which binds these knit picked religions together, one identifiable paradigm of knit picking and conforming them - ruling ideology in capitalist society. To talk of alienation from one's true nature, religious belief is part of this estrangement, this is not simply "my" argument, this is the argument of both Marx and Feuerbach.

Your greatest error is recognizing "ideas" as self sufficient unto themselves, without questioning or bothering with the mechanisms of inception of those ideas, how they are derived, and why specifically they are derived. What is the power, and strength behind ideas, in other words.


Can you even think of a legitimate reason why a person who believes that the revolution is being guided by God cannot be a Communist?
[...]but since when does every Communist know every detail about Communist ideology? Their beliefs would not have to make sense, but is there even a single reason, at all, as to why they cannot properly take on the role of a Communist?


What a profoundly ridiculous question. Being a Communist is not about adherence, or vast articulation of "theory", it is identification with a real existing force, a real existing embodiment of a social interest which seeks to abolish present conditions of life. It is an insistence against relations of power today, you cannot "know every detail about Communist ideology" because ideology is not a systematized, organized conscious platform of ideas, it is a means of articulating reality but in such a way wherein this reality is (perpetually) unknowable. What makes Communist ideology true is that it's "unknowable" is generally and completely unknowable to everyone, while we Communists can critically engage bourgeois ideology and recognize that what it posits, or the reality that it designates is knowably false. Ideology embodies class interest. One can IDENTIFY with the idea of a god, but the question simply goes: Why would they want to? For what reason? For the fuck of it? That's now how belief works - that is NOT in any meaningful sense "believing the revolution is being guided by a god". Such a belief would have be grounded in either a mental sickness, or it would have to have derived from a real-existing substrate of sytematized religious belief which existed before the revolution. Because presently, all gods as they exist are legitimization of the existing world, projections of the collective mind of capitalism as a pre-condition for the existence of the entire universe. If one believed in the "god of the revolution", one would have to justify this belief: And under the backdrop of a secular society wherein the power of religion is only secondary to ideology. If Communism supersedes, nay, if the revolution itself supersedes bourgeois society and its achievements, how the fuck could one hold a belief which is irrevocably a step backwards even from bourgeois-rationalism? How is this belief justified, and why is it there? Superstition? In other words, a renunciation of what already must necessarily internalize the achievments of bourgeois science?

The fact of the matter is very simple: One could, technically be a Communist and think "god" is behind it all, but only under the pre-condition that they are utterly ignorant of the struggle itself. This doesn't make any sense, however, considering that identification with the struggle is a pre-condition to taking part in it. Communism is not an abstraction and it does not come from our ass. It comes already from the substrate of a militantly anti-religious struggle which seeks to remove religion from all spheres of public life, as a matter of fact since the 19th century the Communists identified with the radical-bourgeois in attempting to fight the power of religion in society - so what predispositions to belief, for what reason would one come to believe that a "god" is guiding the revolution? Again, this is nothing short of a ridiculous abstraction, one could not believe this and be a Communist, because if one was a Communist the predispositions to this belief would not be present. You again keep repeating the same mistake of thinking that all ideas represent real beliefs by merit of linguistically "existing". So to speak, in your mind, there is a significant ideological dimension which would prompt someone to believe that Godzilla is real, simply because the linguistic structure of such a sentence "Godzilla is real" and its offshoots are possible. This is postmodern drivel which is part of the degeneration of our standards of reason.


Furthermore, it's worth noting that in both Marx and Engel's writings there are comparisons between things like Early Christianity and the teachings of Jesus with the Communist movement.


"Furthermore" this cretinously ignores the fact that there are countless examples in history, recognized by both Marx and Engels, of "Communism" and all of them took a religious character. This isn't evidence that religion in their time, or today is capable of being reconciled with Communism, it is evidence that before capitalism ideology could only be expressed in religious terms. There was nothing "outside" religion, there was no secularism, there was no rationalism devoid of superstition, the relations to production were not sophisticated enough to even prompt this level of thinking. This isn't a "comparison" with a Communist movement as such but, as Marx even mentioned in the linked text above, a means of deriving legitimacy for the movement in instances of its alleged historic expression. Marx, a good Hegelian, didn't actually think this was a "Communist movement" but recognized that it can be articulated as such only because conditions today make Communist ideology possible. Speaking of Hegel, this is absolutely a recognition that religion today takes a completely different character and form than it did previosuly, that something might have existed before and something today have the same content does not mean they have the same form, or function. "Early Christianity" didn't exist under the backdrop of violent anti-religious sentiment, of the age of reason, of rationalism and a scientific revolution which condemned all forms of darkness, and if it did, it would be reactionary.


My point being, you insist that Atheism and pure Materialism is a fundamental part to Communism, yet the very nature of this brings in far too many implications that it is clear Marx himself never stated, nor likely even wanted.


What pretenses to Marx's views you have! This is typical of liberals, apologists who cannot escape the inescapable nature of Marx's genius: They have to concede that Marx wasn't an idiot, but only under the pre-condition that they completely botch Marx and conform him into a "good, reasonable" liberal who would have never "wanted to state something like this". Because their standards of truth are based on these terms, to not be "too extreme" or "unreasonable" in this manner. The fact is that Marx insisted anti-religion to be a precondition to the Communist movement, and the "implications" you speak of are nothing more than the confused pretenses to multitudes of belief which simply do note exist outside of mere abstracted phrases and means of identification. In this post-industrial consumer culture, "ideas" have become almost like commodities, a means of cosmetic expression of one's "individual" uniqueness wherein people identify with ideas (NOT believe them) because they are more interesting, or more importantly make them appear more interesting. Such hollow trash, such abstractions have no bearing in any social reality in our society, when one claims "multitudes of belief", they designate a big other, a gaze which embodies their own insistence to uncertainty while they are most definitely hypocritically certain that their claims to objective reality, relativism, are true.


So it is my belief that Marx did not want to completely abandon the religious, that he knew they, too, would be a fundamental part of the movement, and that he merely understood them in the way that they were merely the epitome of current social conditions.


Marx did not want to "abandon" people because they were religious, but Marx was violently anti-religious. It doesn't matter what your belief is, this isn't up for debate, Marx aimed at the destruction of religion and was fervently opposed to all religious influences in the worker's movement. Would you like sources for this as well?


Here is a short, but decent, article I found on this very subject that I came across when researching to make sure my points were correct. I think it summarizes some of what I've stated and provides direct quotations from Marx, though honestly seems that added more to their conclusion than I would have liked. Still it seems a decent article, I guess: http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/atheism.htm


Yes, the fact is that what Marx opposed of atheism had nothing to do with any spontaneos sympathy with religion but a recognition that athiesm was nothing more than an abstraction from already, pre-existing religious ideas. Now here's a question: do you deny that Marx said this - religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself? If you don't, how the fuck could this mean anything else but an insistence that religion will "collapse" following the abolition of a distorted reality? And the fact of the matter is that this does you no justice whatsoever, you're honestly so intellectually dishonest it's fucking sickening:


While pointing out that the task of atheism had already been essentially completed by the French Revolution, he also saw the critique of religion as a model for the critique of capitalism.

As early as 1842, at the age of 23, Marx wrote to his friend Arnold Ruge that he refused

“the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people.” [Letter to Ruge, November 24, 1842]

Marx argued in the 1844 Manuscripts that with the success of the bourgeois revolution and the emergence of the workers’ movement struggling for socialism, atheism was becoming an anachronism:

“Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation.”


This is from the same link that you posted! How does this summarize your arguments? Surely you didn't read it, because not long after you claimed that: What do you mean by 'the matter had already been settled'? To whom?
I'm pretty sure the masses would disagree with you, both then and now.
Marx was no fool, he did not ignore important subjects just because he thought they were 'settled'. If anything it would seem quite the opposite, that the matters which were believed to be 'settled' would be the ones he would most condemn! The very nature of which is Communism.

Religion was still very much a 'hot topic' of the day.

Excuse me? This is literally evident, with a plethora of quotes, in the very link you gave me which allegedly "summarizes" your views on the matter. Now, carefully and succinctly explain to me how, with the above citations from Marx, Marx didn't think that the matter had been settled. For Marx, the whole point of his aversion towards "atheists" during his day was that the question had already been settled yet it made no difference as far as the power of religious ideas during his time. For Marx, the root of the problem wasn't in arguing about abstractions, but in the condition which allows for belief in boogymen to still have power. That's the point. Again, not up for debate. It is hilarious how you're trying to misconstrue Marx's criticism of 'atheism' as now some kind of spontaneous tolerance or sympathy toward religious belief. When Luther attacked the catholic church, he didn't do so making pretenses to Roman paganism. Marx's problem wasn't that they were too harsh on religion, it was that they were too soft, still dabbling in what is essentially still theistic belief, only with the word "god" changed by some other kind of legitimizing metaphysical force.


Christian-Communism is exactly the point where Communism and the quality of Atheism, that Marx describe, conflict. But can you truly state these Christians are not truly Communists? Marx did not seem to predict the existence of such a group.


Indeed, let us limit the theoretical power of Marxism because Marx couldn't infer that religious infiltration of the worker's movement, which he fervently condemned in all manifestations during his life, was somehow accepted by people like you. The fact of the matter is that little separates "liberation theology" with the religious-Communism which manifested in the form of peasant uprisings and so on. The reason liberation theology had an iota or a semblance of backing among the masses was because it was based in largely rural latin America, wherein people were illiterate and ignorant. Otherwise, no, Christian Communism is not "real", it had no bearing in reality and was still an abstraction. Poor Marx for not having been able to predict such reactionary drivel! Unless we refer to Ernst Bloch, and atheist who thought that the spirit of Christianity ethically is wroth defending (in comparison to religion before Christianity) which would designate myself as a Christian-Communist. But this isn't adherence to the religion as such, it is recognizing something that's been there all along (the emancipatory potential of Christian logic - not the Christian religion as it existed). If we examine liberation theology as it existed, or the texts of ACTUAL Christians who called themselves Communists (which were rather scarce, many of whom identifying with labor movements or socialism), yes these were not "Communists" in the meaningful sense of the word, with their weakness of heart and lack of stormy convictions. All religious reconciliation with the revolutionary movement has been, at least by religious theologians, an insistence to re-work capitalist society on different terms. In fact, what you fail to realize is that being a Communist is very much more than calling yourself one.


So what prevents the Buddhist from Communism in any of Marx's writings? None of the things Marx even spoke of in the referenced article ever contradict fundamental Buddhist ideology.


Buddhism may not be theistic, but it is certainly anti-materialist in nature, it is certainly reactionary in nature. The question is simple: Why would someone be a buddhist and identify with Communism? Why would one adhere to the "teachings" of buddhism actually? You commit the error of simply comparing different "outwardly" ideas which consciously say one thing, compatibility has nothing to do with this but their origin and the very edifice of their structure: WHY do people believe, and what function does this belief have? Being a Communist is not about strictly adhering to Marx's writings as such, but remaining true to the real existing movement derived from the present state of things. A consistent buddhist would have great philosophic qualm with the idea that the whole fucking world needs to be turned on its head, the mere idea of revolutionary justice is something Buddhists can never reconcile themselves with.


These terms are therefore not rejected due to their nature of being obstacles to Communism, but due to the very nature that they are an obstacle between man and his true self.


What vague, nonsensical drivel. These "terms" (which are not simply terms), are opposed because they have real implications as far as the real existing struggle goes - what it means is more than what it sais it means.


Therefore, Marx is not just an Atheist. Atheism is an abstraction in the same way that all forms of oppressive relationships are an abstraction.

No, oppressive relationships exist concretely. Stop abusing words. Atheism without Communism is an abstraction in that it abstracts the god of bourgeois society and simply re-defines it in a different way with absolutely no social bearing.


Which is to also mean that, it is possible that some other 'true Religions', ones built upon reasoning, eliminating the oppressive concepts of non-man, would be established in Communism, as well. Religions which are not built explicitly on Atheism, the rejection of God, but upon the concept that man is the essence of man.
As Marx stated in the very article you reference:


And this somehow affirms your utterly nonsensical assertion that Communism will yield "more religions". Let me ask you a simple question: Do you even know how religions are conceived? is it creative people pulling ideas out of their ass? No! Not only in your mind will religion exist in Communism, but religion(s) (WHAT?) - this is completely ridiculous! What predispositions to religion, to superstition, will exist in Communism? How could man be the essence of man without a rejection of the abstraction of man's essence placed as an externality from his being (the idea of a god)? Will it be the creative insistence that "god is in us all", or "god evovles with humanity'? This completely disqualifies an ACTUAL belief in a god. Marx explicitly condemned Feuerbach's insistence that a "human religion" ought to be built, as a matter of fact, which makes this so ironic. Marx not only implicitly, but explicitly rejected that religion could exist in Communism. What Marx meant by Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. was not that the abolition of religion is unnecessary anymore than the abolition of private property is unnecessary, his point was that it was no longer dependent on this negatively but existed affirmatively.


He compares this with the abolition of private property, but what remains after private property is abolished? It is nothing less than 'true property', the very material of humanity's being!
So as such, the abolition of religion will destroy religion, and what will be left is nothing less than 'true religion', the very heart of humanity's being!


What the fuck am I reading? So your delibertae misinterpretation of the quote. He follows then with: Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development, the point being that Communism is affirmative and not parasitically depenent on eternally opposing private property, even though the abolition of private property is a condition for its existence. This is why he previously stated a sentence before: Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. Marx's point is not that "true property" or "true religion" ought to form (what a pathetic, dishonest form of ass covering), Marx's point is that through the Communist movement religion, or arguing for it has become an impossibility. It then follows that opposing it on its own terms is also impossible. Marx was a post-atheist, for him the matter had already been solved and Communism supersedes atheism, not by RETURNING to religious drivel or a "true religion" but by becoming so beyond it as to scrap religion's existence to the dustbin of history. Does this make sense to you? I honestly cannot even fathom how this isn't understood clearly here.


What else would this mean but that 'True Religion' will come about from the death of all old Religion! That true reality will spring forth from the old?


It means that the dichotomy and context for religion itself no longer exists, the conflict against religion does not happen not because religion isn't violently opposed, but because the very context for religion is gone. The only thing close to this (a "true religion") was god-building and Feuerbach's religion of humanity, which was violently rejected by both Marx and Lenin. Has it ever occurred to you that fathoming reality in its entirety is possible without religion? The horror!


Likewise, the non-Proletarian, the bourgeois man, will therefore be those whom embrace religion and thus see the DotP as the Divine Right. That 'God' has now placed them below the new ruling-class, the Proletariat.


You're beyond confused, with the only consistent variable being religious-sentimentality and a desperate attempt to reconcile religion with Communism. This is utterly pathetic. Do you see yourself here? You're actually saying that come the revolution, "non-proletarians" will see the revolution as a form of divine intervention. Sorry, but you're about two hundred fucking years late for any of that, if not more. The altars of bourgeois reason had already done away with such nonsensical superstition, and they persist today - again - as a result of the degeneration of neolibralism. You're not only defending religion, but new age religion.


So it should be understood that a secular DotP would be 'more successful' than an anti-religious one. The reasoning should be very clear: it would not be prone to wild political-accusations, witch-hunts, persecutions or genocides, religion-supported reactionary movements, nor any of the other barbaric corruptions and general stupidity you get when you attempt to abolish something that people are very, very fond of.


How the fuck were these "witch hunts" owed to the attack on religion in the USSR or China? Name me one "genocide" which, even if occured, was irrevocably a result of the anti-religious campaigns in the Soviet Union (which were autonomous from the state, only recieving support and funding. The league of militant atheists was established voluntarily) and in China. The only thread in common is a reactionary pathology which is horrified at the "excesses" of the social transformations and upheavals which occurred in such countries. The fact is that there was a hard time stamping out religion because of the peasant demographic majority, not because religion exists independently of any historic epoch. The point is rather simple: Why were people fond of religion, and why was this only a problem in rural areas in the Soviet Union? People are fond of religion for a reason: Hint - that reason is not because religion is magical. Like what the fuck are you even talking about Subversive? You literally just make shit up. You project your twisted reactionary pathology as some kind of given regarding these societies. And don't dishonestly pretend like you oppose the anti-religious campaigns because you think they were ineffective. You oppose them because pathologically, you're horrified by the idea of it - you're horrified by the idea of burning churches and crushing all world legitimizations of oppression and the existing order. Whether it was successful or not makes no difference to you.


There are so many needless and unnecessary implications when you say stuff like this.


Needless, or aversed, Subversive? The fact is simple: It makes your stomach churn. You attempt to completely botch, violating Occam's razor on all levels Marxism in order so that you can think it can be reconciled with religion. It's not the "implications" you oppose, it's the image connontations. You abstract and re-hash this innate aversion to the destruction of religion by re-phrasing it in such a way which does not designate in practice the destruction of religion.

That is mere rhetoric, and it doubt it can be proven. You take the words of Marx and then add your own conclusions. And this all the result of these implications I have been speaking of.


See? Even you are doing it. Connecting religious-ideology to the Communist movement.

Nothing less, your sympathy shows that we are all human, and that religion is human nature. Even the most Communist-devoted of us, like you might be, is prone to this natural reflection.

Let me fucking vomit: You jump to these grand conclusions as a result of your misinterpretations, what SHIT upon SHIT you tout! It would not be ridiculous to accuse you of DISHONESTLY taking such a phrase out of context in order to support your sick conclusions: i don't have an iota of sympathy for religion and any idiot who is familiar with my posts understands this. To ADD context, what I said was this: All creative forms of spirituality, from new age thought to pantheism do not present us with uniquely new divine figures, their gods are still psychologically the same god of all creeds in bourgeois society, albeit consciously expressed differently, as abstractions. My point was allegorical only: I said that all of the "Creative" multitudes of religious belief are false because the pathological role all of these gods take is the same, and therefore the same "god". the point isn't that a god is real, but that capitalist society doesn't have room for other gods in the true sense of the word. The conclusion you draw from this is that "god" is real, that it will exist in Communism, but most of all, most despicably: That now this is taken as evidence that religion is HUMAN NATURE? What the FUCK am I reading? How the fuck was this interpreted as SYMPATHY with the idea of a god, Subversive? I said that societies, if enforced holistically, only leave room for one god, I did NOT fucking say that such a god is actually real, or that it is "good", or an irrevocable consequence of the existence of ANY society. even if this was sympathy, which it was not, this is now evidence that religion is human nature, or in other words, that religion is biological. For someone so fucking prone on asking for "evidence" and proof, you seem to leave us all in the dark about proving such a ridiculous and nonsensical statement. Maybe if you think with your ass and recognize that religion has existed for a long time - thereby coming to the conclusion that it is human nature this is the case. Religion isn't human nature any more than the class society through which religion is derived is "human nature". Are you trolling?

This isn't at all surprising, actually, considering that running wild with assertions from presumptions derived from misinterpretations, deliberate or otherwise, is just about all you've been fucking good for in this shitpost.


A representation of the very reason why Marx did not enjoy the term 'Atheism' himself, as it lingered on ridiculous implications that were wholly not a part of Communist ideology. That the concept he used was not Atheism, but the abstraction of Atheist ideology, so as to destroy it and remake it as something different.


Tell me, why the fuck do you shove your utter shit in Marx's mouth? To derive a sense of legitimacy for them? You claim that Marx did not enjoy the term "atheism", and the explanation you give is that it is because he somehow, Marx who gave us historical materialism, believed religion was "human nature". Atheism IS a part of Communist ideology irrevocably, Marx's point was that it was used in the practical expression of the movement rather than an insistence on a debate he considered over since the French revolution. The point is that atheism does not have to consciously affirmed, or more importantly, that the debate against the religious is already superseded by targeting the origins of religion.


Quite a claim you have there. However, the problem with this belief would become very obvious if I asked you to support this claim.
Needless to say, I'd like to see your evidence for this claim rather than the claim itself.


"Quite a claim" sais Subversive, you now claims that religion is human nature and that Marx himself thought this. It's ironic because when things ACTUALLY require evidence to back them up, you shy away from it. The "evidence" I've given is inherent to the fucking argument itself, I can't dissect your brain for you and show you, empirically, how this is true. You don't argue by stating childish "prove it!" nonsense, you argue by attacking the structure of the argument itself. I said: the concerns of the imposition of atheist belief on the rest of society are in themselves stemmed from a reactionary psyche, much like the idea of black men raping white women en masse, of Communists "stealing" children from their parents to be raised by the state in such a sinister fashion and so on. What could this be backed up with? Just what exactly are you looking for? An external source, or author who agrees with me? You ask an IMPOSSIBLE fucking question because you yourself cannot avoid that it is true: Now I SAID THIS for a reason, and instead of attacking this reason, instead of actually forming a rebuttal, you stomp your feet on the ground and shout "Prove it!" - NO, what you're really asking is for me to personally convince you, to violently intrude upon your very medium of experience - which I obviously can't do. This is a discussion, as far as you're concerned, it is the same as saying "WELL THOSE ARE JUST WORDS!" - yeah, you're utterly hypocritical in this regard. The fact of the matter is that it is a visible, identifiable paradigm of ideological cliche, and an innate aversion to the social transformations which occurred in the Soviet Union, or more importantly, the radical shift in power on a social level. What you find sickening is the idea of a state which "imposes" anything on society, it's another ideological cliche trope which in itself is a pathology.

The fact of the matter is that atheism didn't HAVE to be imposed on people in such a way, because this was before postmodernism where no one there were unique multitudes of belief - there was the power of the clergy, and there were the Communists, the truth. According to you, people spontaneously thought that "well, what if there is a god on this condition?" with all of these stupid miximing and matching platitudes - but that simply never happened. Belief in a god was associated with previous power structures which existed, with ignorance and backwardness. Such "creative" spirituality didn't exist until the latter half of the 20th century, none the less in such a backward place as Russia where the Orthodox Church didn't even bother to conform to modernization. What you fail to understand is that the only thing which separates a religion from a backwoods Kansas cult, is power and structural power at that. It is violence. Destroying religion was synonymous with destroying the power of the clergy, and it is precisely that which horrifies you. The Soviets, and the Chinese destroyed the structural power of the religious establishment. In your mind, this translates into genocide against people who have religious views, completely ignoring why they had those religious views and on what grounds they were practiced and affirmed. At no point in Soviet or Chinese history was it illegal to have religious beliefs, to add insult to fucking injury. These are lies conjured by bourgeois ideologues so horrified at the emancipation of society from religion - removing the legitimizing power of religion is scary for people like you.


These "impositions of atheist belief" took a severe toll on not only the populaces, of which the many religious among them felt oppressed and terrified, but the revolutions themselves which would eventually succumb to the reactionary forces backed by most of the very same religious-identities in later years.


Yes, because the godless reds who tampered with the holy instruments of god paid the price with the degeneration of the revolution, nay? What is this if not some superstitious drivel? How the FUCK did state atheism lead to the degeneration of the revolution? If anything, the degeneration of the revolution was solidified through the re-introduction of state support for the Orthodox Church and the reintroduction of religion into public life. Using your logic, degeneration should have coincided with more "religious oppression' and state atheism, but the OPPOSITE was true! The point is simple, such a pathology, such a fear of "imposing" atheism, when this didn't reflect the reality of the Soviet Union or China (to add you associate it with genocide and all this shit), has its grounding in a real ideological foundation. We know this because this WASN'T the reality in those countries - you hold this belief independently of the facts.


Seems like another bold claim of yours that is rather unapproachable. I understand your point here, but I certainly can't see how you think anyone is just going to simply agree with it.


We've been over this: Relativism fails its own qualifications to validity by positing an absolute truth, which is in itself inherently wrong. The point is that merely perceiving the history of religion in a relativist manner leaves no room for relativism, because this itself then becomes "relative" to the subject perceiving its history. It is a form of circular reasoning which disallows any understanding of reality.


Did you really mean "imposes" in this sentence? Maybe you meant 'opposes'?
This sort of seems to contradict everything you have been stating so far. And I've certainly not seen you say this before.


I meant opposes.



One could also argue that you're insane. But nevertheless, I will save that argument for later.


I don't care if you disagree with me, in fact, I take it as a compliment to be called insane. To be unbound by ruling ideology, to be disordered in an order which I oppose is something to be aimed at. We Communists are all insane, do well to remember that. And that's a lot coming from you, whose literally either fucking completely confused to the point of insanity, or dishonest.


Eventually this support would be a large piece of what would inevitably cause the dissolution of the USSR. It was also a very large part of what began to break apart Mao's power.


The USSR's dissolusion had nothing to do with the anti-religious campaigns, btu the systemic degenration of the country. This systemic degeneration led to an inability to legitimantly fight against religion, which in turn led to a rise in religious fervor in Russia during the 1980's. there's a difference between correlation and causation. Regarding Mao, you're just pulling shit out of your ass: Mao's power didn't break apart, he fucking died and religious tolerance followed Deng's market reforms, it didn't proceed them. And even if it did, it was still contingent of the introduction of capitalism to China.


That the people do understand that the attack on the clergy is exactly that - an attack on the clergy.

The USSR and the Cultural Revolution were not specific to clergy. They caused real-world harm to religious individuals of all kinds, not just the clergy. This violence against the Proletariat was the loudest demonstration that the State was not acting in the interests of the Proletariat.


What violence "against the proletariat"? Are you suggesting there was an actual genocide against people in the USSR? And here's a fucking news flash: The attack on the exploiters themselves, the bourgeoisie, caused harm to non-exploiters too. That doesn't disqualify its contingency as being based on an attack on the institution that is the Orthodox Church. It's a fucking war. Get over it. You keep talking out of your ass: The religious "victims", if they even existed, were rural peasants, not proletarians. The industrial working class, most of whom perished during the civil war (but even during hteir later emergence) were hardly religious. You keep talking out of your ass and it's pathetic. there were some proletarians who backed the counter-revolution: Was fighting them now "against the interests of the proletariat"? No! The designation of something as proletarian, or non-proletarian isn't SIMPLY reducible to demographics but in whose traceable interest this is in. The function of religion had been to keep them ignorant and weak, it was an organized perpetuation of ignorance, darkness and reaction.


If you believe that then I'm not sure what else to do. You are confused.


Perhaps you should stop arguing with me and concede you don't know what you're talking about. You cannot divorce religion from the conditions through which religion is derived. The power of religion is vested in the state - otherwise, it would not exist. As I said, the creative multitudes of belief in the 21st century as result of postmodernism are not "natural" expressions of human creativity but creative abstractions from real, legitimized ruling ideology. When the conditions for these are destroyed, it follows that so too will all forms of religion.


If Communism were requiring Atheism, not just the rejection of alienation but the rejection of religion as a whole, then what substance is Religion composed of that allows itself to hold Socialist-ideology, nor further, even Communist ideology?


"Just look" at this circular reaosning. "If Communism is atheistic, how come Communism isn't atheistic"? - religion is NOT able to reconcile itself with Socialism. That has been the point all along.


Tell me, what then becomes of Feuerbach's heart, one you so-called 'Atheism', if Religion is the "heart of the heartless world"?


A world with a heart is vested in the movement itself: The movement has a heart of its own.


the "soul of soulless conditions"? If Communism rejects the heart and soul of society, then what is it but emptiness?


The point is simple: Communism is not a soulless condition, capitalism is. Communism rejects the heart and soul of society because it rejects society itself. What is left is no longer alienation of man with the world around him, a direct articulation of man's existing condition, the absence of the necessity of a "soul"/ You seem to think that emotion, and a coordinate of articulation are dependent on religion. That's not the fucking point: The point is that religion legitimizes capitalism by appropriating these things, to give people an oasis of 'humanity' or a breath of fresh air. This is a distraction for Communists. Communism has its own soul, it is its own soul, nay, it is man no longer alienated from his soul.


Therefore, Communism is not inherently Atheist, Communism is inherently truly religious!

This is profoundly idiotic. Marx recognized religion as part of alienation - how does it figure that, on Marx's terms, we can be "alienated" from what EMBODIES our alienation? You are saying that we're alienated from alienation. Which is BEYOND confused.

[Rafiq]

It is not from the foundations of religion through which the soul of our soulless society is ecstatically fathomed by men and women, it is ideology THROUGH religion. Communism, as an ideology which does not require secondary means of legitimization, is thus more powerful in appropriating and possessing the human soul.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I see Rafiq be writing novels and ignoring me, that's wise, you don't want none

[Rafiq]

I see Rafiq be writing novels and ignoring me, that's wise, you don't want none

We have been over this before.

[Бай Ганьо]

As Rudolph pointed out, there's some irony here. You suggest we can abolish slavery, child labor, "and so on", but suddenly we can't abolish "spirituality"? These are all but ideas, so you can indeed abolish them all or abolish none. Pick your argument.
And I did not mean abolish by law, I meant, explicitly, abolish by force.
As in, the explicit genocide of explicitly 'people of faith'. As such demonstrated in China's 'Cultural Revolution' period.
Abolish by force? How is that supposed to work? You cannot send inspectors to check people’s thoughts (yet). So tell me, how does your perfect genocide of people work if there are no means to identify them? How do you recognize spiritual people? By bringing them in for questioning to extract a confession? With religious persecution you can get rid of all public displays of religiosity, but not of spirituality.


It is truth that if you tried to make laws against religious-Philosophies you would only end up integrating traditional Philosophies in with them and therefore abolishing both. How would you make a distinction?
And even if you could make a distinction, WHY would you?
The distinction is pretty obvious: religious philosophies are directly inspired by religion, other philosophies are not. Why wouldn’t I make the distinction? I did not invent it. Since this distinction exists, one could simply write laws against religious philosophies without integrating other philosophies if one wished to.



Originally Posted by hem_day
Needless to say, spirituality and religious philosophy aren’t synonyms.
I never said they were.
You did:


'Sprituality' as I have defined it are equal to Philosophies. They are merely the Philosophies derived from Religions.
If “philosophies” are merely the “philosophies derived from religions” then they are religious philosophies. If “spiritualy are equal to philosophies”, as you have defined it, then spirituality are equal to religious philosophies.

So:

1) SBNR are forms of spirituality that aren’t based on religions. How can you reconcile SBNR with the fact that “spirituality” are equal to “philosophies derived from religions”?

2) Taking all your redefinitions into account, the following sentence…


To abolish Spirituality is, essentially, to abolish Philosophy itself

… is nothing else than saying that “to abolish religious philosophies is, essentially, to abolish philosophy itself”, which is nonsense as you (correctly) stated that “religious-Philosophy” is to be understood “as a type of Philosophy”. CED.

Either you forget what you write or you don’t even understand what you write.


I defined words within a very explicit context. This is a legitimate thing to do.
Pretty much all academic writings do this. Sometimes things cannot properly be conveyed without creating new definitions - that's sort of what language is for, you know?

[…]
I gave you clear reasons why your definitions needed to be clearly defined, and why it means the end of your entire argument if you can't define them.

It's a legitimate thing to do when there is no existing definition or when it is possible to perfect the existing one. You visibly think your personal definitions are superior to those you can find in dictionaries and encyclopedies. I doubt so. For instance, your definition of philosophy was terribly reductive.


Furthermore, you won't find any "new spellings" in my text. That is merely a demonstration that you are, in fact, merely lying to discredit me.
Really? "Philosophy", "witch hunt" with capitalized first letters and "irrational thinking", "belief system", "direct persecution" and "religious force" with a hyphen? Is that to give a special aura of intellectuality to your texts?

Here’s a sample:


Back to the topic at hand: This is ultimately why my suggestions are necessary. It does not attempt to eliminate irrational-thoughts directly. It is the approach to eliminate irrational-thinking.
By eliminating irrational-thinking, rather than irrational-thoughts, one roots out the problem entirely. You cannot form irrational-thought if one does not think irrationally.
The means to do this is by eliminating the religious-force of Religion. By abolishing the acts of spreading and enforcing 'social-laws' of any form, against any group or individual, one also abolishes the privilege of irrational-thought. And by abolishing the privilege of such, one abolishes the very nature of benefit for thinking irrationally. Without benefit, and in fact punishment against the act thereof, one is in every way disinclined to accept, perform, or create irrational-thinking. […]
It is also done without the direct-persecution of others,
So, who’s lying?


If you think I have been "obscure and vague", then why not ask for clarification instead of attempting to attack me? I would have been more than willing to clarify anything I said.
Do you not know how mature debate works? Do you regularly jump to conclusions about people and their arguments instead of trying to understand them first? It is pitiful.
Needless to say, lies and attacks like you just used are the only non-legitimate form of argument between us. If you wish for there to be maturity in such a discussion I would suggest you get some.

This is funny. Are you running for the prize of self-victimization? I already noticed in other threads that every time you’re short of arguments you start whining about being attacked. You also never question your own systematically condescending attitude towards other people. I’m not even talking about the way you behave here. Just reread yourself in other debates.


Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by: "make something rational out of something that is obviously not." Are you suggesting that religious Philosophies cannot be rational?
So are you arguing that, for example, the teachings of Jesus to give away wealth to the poor, to 'love thy neighbor', to respect, accept, and forgive people for their mistakes is somehow irrational?
If not, then what ARE you saying? You are the only one being "vague and obscure" here.
I didn’t say that religious philosophies are irrational. I said that we don’t need religious philosophies to come to rational principles like forgiving people and the other principles you mention. My so-called “bias” is against “simply accepted core-belief sets” as point of departure of any philosophy. I have never hidden that. Actually, I’ve been very clear about that, I’ve even been “too literal” about that:


Originally Posted by hem_day
"Simply accepted" stands in contradiction with the critical attitude expected from a philosopher.

Religious philosophies can be rational to the extent that they can develop something rational out of something that is simply accepted. That something is not necessarily rational. If you pray to cows because you have simply accepted that those animals are holy beasts, does that make that I can rationally understand the reason of your behavior? Yes. Does that make holding that belief in itself rational? No. You can understand rationally why someone believes (f.e. in God, in creationism, in ghosts), but that doesn’t make holding that belief in itself rational, given the amount of knowledge we dispose of. I’ll say it in the words of Proudhon, since I noticed you like him very much: “[La croyance], ouvrage de la raison ignorante, peut être abrogée par la raison mieux instruite”. I quoted the original as I’m sure you need no French lessons.

The problem is that you reduce religious philosophies to their ethical principles, and that you refuse to question their source and to look at their other aspects. Apart from that, I already showed that what you call the “teachings of Jesus” is nothing more than the result of a selective reading of biblical texts. Not all the “teachings of Jesus” are rational and/or useful.

So, if you don’t want to read what I write, then there’s no point of continuing this exchange.


So you have a problem on your hands - you want all religion to be dissolved but have not as of yet presented a valid argument as to why or how religion will be dissolved under revolution. So what do YOU plan to do about this problem?
Or are you stating you'll just ignore them and allow them to be a remaining reactionary force during the revolutionary period? Is that really what you want?
I plan nothing at all. We could certainly get rid of institutions like the Catholic Church, but that would not make beliefs disappear. Beliefs seem to be part of human nature. As long as there will be beliefs, new cults, dogmas and gatherings will potentially arise and maybe even new institutions. I only believe in a drastic reduction of beliefs through education. No revolution will lead to an immediate change; changes do not always happen synchronically, actually they rarely do.


Or are you just suggesting that you, 'personally', won't be doing this crusade? Because, having seen your previous dishonesty, I would not be surprised if this is what you meant.
I meant all non-militant atheists like me, that is to say the vast majority of atheists.


hem_day, inevitably you are attempting to discuss everything in terms of theoretical positions, which is why you think I was speaking of Relativism,
You weren’t speaking of relativism, you were being relativist with your nonsense on evolution vs creationism.

[Rafiq]

Beliefs seem to be part of human nature. As long as there will be beliefs, new cults, dogmas and gatherings will potentially arise and maybe even new institutions. I only believe in a drastic reduction of beliefs through education. No revolution will lead to an immediate change; changes do not always happen synchronically, actually they rarely do.


Yes, hem day, this is precisely the origin of religion. Our human nature, i.e. our genes had sparked spontaneous beliefs in men, through which they were able to gather more followers: Thus, institutions like the Catholic Church were born. Or might we recognize that beliefs exist for a reason, that the structural perpetuation of certain beliefs are necessary for a reason. If we were to take all the backwoods cults that had arisen in the late 20th century, is there really a fundamental difference with regard to belief? There is none. Hypothetically, let us assume that a belief forms among people that Gliese 581-d is most certainly habitable and that we ought to visit it immediately. After all, if we assume all beliefs have a definitive origin, and that the power behind such beliefs is not given to chance, then it is not unreasonable to assume that this could be a spontaneous belief in a society which has done away with the necessity of ("old"in your mind) religion. Now carefully explain to us all (and if you would rather use a different example of a "belief" which COULD form, be my guest) how this could lead to something similar to the institution that is the Catholic Church, with its superstitious rituals, its holistic ethical framework, and so on. Are you joking?

Capitalism has already done away with religion as such, so religion as it exists today must make pretenses to the impossible. Before the age of reason, religion couldn't rely on the "gaps", as the filling of them was irrevocably owed to religion, which wasn't divorced from science.

[Subversive]

The reality of the matter is that you're guising your innate aversion toward atheism as it exists today, within the context of real-existing religious dichotomy which exist today, through disassociating Marx, or at least Marxism with it. It would be like saying, for example, that feminism today isn't worth batting an eye for because when Marx referred to the upheaval of the fairer sex, the "connotations" were different then they are today.
No, the way I see it is that you are guising your own extreme bias of atheism within Marxism. You're attempting, and failing miserably, to make them inseparable. In fact, you admit to believing they are inseparable, as you stated earlier. The only source you have for this, the only legitimate argument you make, is a personal interpretation of one of Marx's writings, one which is widely considered one of his least important. Meanwhile, I've used multiple sources of his works to convey a wider perspective of what he might have actually believed. Therefore, you are the one who is therefore only twisting semantics that Marx used to ultimately justify your bias. I am doing no such thing, and you have no evidence of this.

You can then accuse me of whatever nonsense this is above, but the fact is this will remain as nothing but false accusations. Nonsense.

Inevitably what I see here, what I see in every post you make on these forums, is you hold an extreme arrogance with a presumption that you are always-correct before the argument even takes place. This leads you to formulating straw men and other fallacies to suit your argument rather than attempting to, honestly, analyze what the other person is trying to say.

"The reality of the matter" is that you do not participate in discussions honestly or even intellectually, and I'd prefer to speak with someone who has not already-decided the conclusion prior to the discussion itself. What is even the point of such a discussion? It is meaningless. You seem to be an intelligent person but you do not seem to actually utilize that intelligence. It is a shame, really.


And what you're saying is utterly fucking ridiculous: In your mind, Marx's atheism amounted to a recognition that there is no divine intervention in human history. Interesting, because this qualifies Hegel, and virtually every other thinker of the enlightenment too as atheists. What you fail to understand is that an explicit rejection of superstition and magic was already in place over a century before Marx wrote anything at all.
An example of one of these straw men. As well, a demonstration of pure arrogance. "In your mind" - are you a psychic now? Do you believe you have the ability to see into other people's minds? Be honest. You make argument so pointless with such nonsense.

Like I have stated before, I have studied religion for quite a long time. I'm quite familiar with its history, very likely even more familiar with it than you.

What I've stated is nothing like this straw man of yours. I can understand where you thought that, though: You seem to have read part of what I've said and ignored everything else. I'm not sure if this was due to general ignorance and bias or just misunderstanding.

As I have explained, Marx does not just dismiss supernaturalism, like those prior, but that he does indeed reject religion. However, the key here is not in what he rejects, since both anti-supernaturalism and atheism existed prior to Marx himself, but in 'How' he rejects it. I'm sure you can agree with this much.
The difference between me and you lies in how we each believe he was rejecting religion, or perhaps more accurately, how he would want it to be rejected.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that he wanted religion to be rejected entirely. That this rejection of religion, as a whole, entirely, is the basis for Communism. To me, honestly, this makes no sense at all. You suggest that ultimately the abolishment of clergy is the true practice of this. As you stated in the big, bold nonsense of yours: "Destroying religion was synonymous with destroying the power of the clergy".
Inevitably, since this is the crux of the argument, I assume you mean that you are entirely fine with "destroying religion" by means of persecuting religious-believers, as seen in the USSR and in the PRC.

What I have instead explained is that he did not state religion should be rejected entirely, as a whole, but rejected specifically as a means of struggle, as a means of understanding reality, and as a means and source of power and oppression. This goes farther than just abolishing clergy, and isn't as reckless, chaotic, and stupid as what "destroying religion" implies. It implies using tact to destroy the mechanisms in which clergy might hold power, and might obtain power, not by persecuting religion as a whole, but by focusing on the very means of which allows religion to be utilized in such ways. To put it more specifically, to reject religion through political means. I also encourage you to read, or remember, Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right in which he essentially states that Religion is not the focus of the problem, that it will dissipate on its own, but that Politics is the focus because it is a political problem.
Behold:

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
The above quotation, taken directly from his Critique, essentially summarizes everything I have so far stated. That 'truth of this world' comes about by 'unmasking' religion as self-estrangement. That religion is the criticism of law and politics.

I have therefore also explained that in these contexts, the "Religion" Marx speaks of, is equal to the force which is the current-state of Religion, the 'Religion-as-State', as I have called it, which is ultimately a form of religion which can and is abused to establish law, dogmas, through the means of an Institution, the Church, or as you state it: The Clergy.
The reasons for understanding it in this way I have previously discussed, such as that Religion is the 'Soul' and 'Heart' of the world, and many other metaphors that Marx commonly used to demonstrate a sort of sympathy for religion. That he, never once, entirely condemned religion as a philosophical or spiritual entity, but only as a political force.
In fact, both Marx and Engels had mentioned things like early-Christianity and some similarities to Communism. For example, Engels wrote:

The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order.
I would expand even further on that aspect, but feel it is unnecessary as I have already tried to do that and it seems no one really listens. I will just assume that, for any reasonable person, I have already made it plainly clear. I believe I have provided more than enough evidence and explanation in this respect.

So no, I have not done any such thing as to believe Marx was only dismissing supernaturalism. I have certainly not ignored any history, either. You are mistaken.

As well, you wholeheartedly and foolishly suggested that I fear the clergy to be 'destroyed'? That this "horrifies" me? That is truly laughable, because it is exactly that of which I have so far approved. So how can something I approve of "horrify" me? You speak only nonsense.



The "sort of atheism" Marx was speaking of was an explicit rejection of religion.
Your terminology is too vague and ultimately meaningless. Without the higher context I could even agree with this statement, as I have previously agreed with some of the things you have stated prior to now. The issue is in what you reall mean by "explicit rejection" and "religion". There are, as I have explained in the past, too many implications you are attempting to impose on these things without reason. Things which I have explained are entirely unnecessary and not found in Marx's works. And I have even provided much evidence and explanation, quotations from Marx himself, that these implications are not truly found in Marx's works. So we can conclude that they stem only from your own bias. You read what you want to read.


When Marx said that religion was the heart of a heartless world, he was not referring to an eternal state of mankind (Whereby Communism too isn't a heart), he was referring to a world which denies people of a direct relationship to the direct substance of their life-being, through which religion takes the role of legitimizing.
Citation needed.

It is easy enough to make a claim, but can you support these claims you make? So far you've not done so.
Meanwhile, I have done just the opposite and demonstrated the opposite. I have taken Marx's own words to justify an interpretation of this that contradicts what you are now claiming.
So if you want such claims to have any merit, if you are here to argue in honesty rather than vanity, then you should provide more credibility to your claims rather than just making them. You are not privileged to any special-insights into Marx's beliefs. You cannot read minds or evoke his spirit. You are not a psychic medium, you cannot read other people's thoughts, his nor mine. Let's eliminate such false pretenses. Anyone can make claims, the point is not to make them but to support them.

In fact, honestly, who really cares what he MAY or MAY NOT have meant? Why bother with interpretation of things he obviously left vague? If he wanted it clarified I'm sure he would have clarified it. It does not really matter that much. What matters is what is most effective and what is efficient for society. I have pointed out, multiple times, the faulty in violently persecuting religious believers and attempting to destroy religion through violence, as seen in the USSR and the PRC. I believe you have yet to even address these points.

So tell me, how is what you argue more effective than what I have argued? I'd more like an explanation on that, rather than just your personal interpretations of what you think Marx meant.


The point of Marx is that destroying religion is impossible without destroying the conditions from which religion derives.
Again, vague statements that can be agreed with if overlooking the contextual implications. I agree with the statement - I disagree with your implications.


And how convenient of you to reduce materialism to merely recognizing the fact that magic doesn't exist in history: This is beyond fucking stupid.
If anything is "stupid" it would be your incessant need to put words into other people's mouths. You don't just do it to me, but you do it to Marx as well. It is pitiful. This is just yet another one of your ridiculous straw men. Let's keep the discussion mature.
No need for such useless emotional rhetoric, either. I can understand your emotional investment in this issue, but if you're unable to maintain a level-head then that is merely just another wall you use to close everyone else off to protect your preconceptions about the world. It really is unnecessary.


The point is simple: Religion derives as a reflection of the conditions of the world as it exists, man makes religion and not the other way around. [...] If religion is de-mystified, how is the mystical power of religion sustained?
If Religion "derives as a reflection of the conditions of the world as it exists", then this implies two things: 1. That Religion will exist forever so long as "the conditions of the world" exists, and 2. that rejecting it, specifically, the "reflection" itself, is useless.
The first point supports my statements: That Religion cannot be destroyed without, essentially, destroying humanity itself.
For the second, I can't remember if I explained this to you or hem_day, but as I explained earlier, you cannot destroy and illusion with hand-waving it away. You must get to its source.

So inevitably, yes I agree. Religion is, in a way, the embodied reflection of worldly conditions. It is indeed created by man, man is obviously not created by it. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.
As well, if Religion is "de-mystified" then the "mystical power" of religion is also destroyed. Exactly.

All of this supports everything I've stated so far, thank you.



Atheism to which Marx was referring to was not only more radically anti-religious than the atheism of modern society, it was so much so that even the most ardent anti-theists would probably meet it with horror.
Then why didn't they? Why don't we see more writings from Marx or his critics about religion? Why wasn't this turned into some huge issue prior to the USSR? Why wasn't this turning away religious-people from the Communist movement prior to the USSR?

If what you say is true, the vast majority of people who have read or even heard about his works either always misinterpret him and the people who misinterpret him simply never find a reason to argue against this concept, or else generally no one, not even the people in the movement, ever actually read any of his works.

So if what you're saying is true - then that's a massive coincidence, don't you think?


One meets the destruction of religion with horror only in proportion to how they meet the destruction of existing society with horror, the destruction of old bonds of society and the destruction of existing relations to production.
Yet another bold claim without so much as a shred of evidence to support it.

I'm sure you'll find many, many Leftists whose only contention with the Communist movement, as it has developed and as you suggest it should be, is the stance on religion. And defined as such, these people actually aren't really Leftists at all. And in such a case I'm sure you'll find that you've merely resolved yourself to a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Now, I'm sure it'd be lovely for you to suggest that only the most ardent atheistic Communists are 'true Communists', and that everyone else is in fact reactionary scum, but there is no such evidence to suggest this. There is no such "proportion" of anti-religion to Communism. It doesn't exist. It is merely a fraudulent conception within your mind. It isn't real.

And this demonstrates the necessary for claims to be supported with evidence and reasoning. Claims are worthless when not supported.


With all of your attempts to white-wash Marx's atheism, you fail to explain how Marx violently opposed all religious influences on the working class movement if this isn't something he was particularly concerned with.
Citation needed for this 'violent opposition of all religious influences'.



And to be clear: No one is trying to convince you personally of anything, I could care less about what you think.
You could care less what I think? Wow, I feel special now. I thought you didn't care at all.



With the mentality that "I think this until I am literally forced to think otherwise by merit of experience", you'll think whatever you do to the grave.
Projecting much? You do understand what psychological projection is, yes?
To be honest, I only see this in you. You and your extreme arrogance and egotism. This self-proclamation from the very outset of every-argument I've ever seen you make, to me or others, is one of: "I am right, and will always be right!".

I am actually a very open-minded person. I have actually been very receptive to your arguments. More than once I have agreed with some of the things you've said, other than, like you, outright dismissing it as an all-or-none, black-and-white scenario. I agreed with some things because I'm actually discussing something, honestly. I'm not someone just looking to "win the argument". I am actually participating, sincerely.
What's more, when you contend with an issue I provide clear citations and quotations to support my points. What do you do? You just make claims. These bold claims that imply you're some sort of super-human, that you have psychic powers, can read other people's minds and also speak to the dead. Your entire persona exude's the very definition of 'arrogance'.

Go ahead, look at the discussions we've had. Have you ever once agreed with me, like I have with you? Don't think this is because you have superior points. It is simply due to the fact you're egotism does not allow you to do so. You do not even provide citations or supporting evidence. You just make blatant bold claims that you seem to truly believe simply hold inherent truth only because you stated them, only because they come from you.

And how often have you resorted to obvious anger and expletive language? Is your vocabulary so poor that you don't know of any other ways to fill out sentences or convey your messages? Are your arguments so poorly written, so poorly thought out, that you must use forceful language to give them any presence?

If you are going to pretend that I am a very close-minded person, then what does that make you exactly? You are nothing short of egotism personified, if that is the case.

Be honest now. No more of this mind-pollution you call 'truth'. If you're going to honestly participate in a discussion then you need to have a more open-mind.
You are not perfect. You are not always right. You can't read people's thoughts. And you can't speak to the dead. Realize these things and just get over it.



On the contrary, there is only a single meaningful reason, and it is precisely the fact that you're pathologically a reactionary festering in the lingering dried shit of religion, clinging on to an inherently religious sentimentality.
This is exactly the sort of mind-rot I'm talking about. Your putrid ignorance is the only thing festering here.
You don't even attempt to bother taking this discussion seriously - you just condemn everyone who does not agree with you and everyone you don't agree with. That's all I've ever seen you do here on this forum. It's all about your own righteous-condemnation. It is your own mindless cult of self: You believe yourself a god; infallible, above-judgement and criticism. Grow up.

In any case, this is an example that you really do believe that anyone who's not completely anti-religious is also not a Communist. A true example of your No True Scotsman fallacy. That I simply just must be a "reactionary" hiding underneath the skin of a Communist.



The fact of the matter is that the "complexity" of religion is not owed at all to its theoretical legacy or the various religious texts that have accumulated throughout its according history, but to the power of our social relationships to each other.
Oh wow, what an amazing insight. OH I SEE CLEARLY NOW! EVERYTHING IS CLEAR! YOU REALLY ARE A GOD, RAFIQ! :glare:
If you think this is somehow a remarkable revelation to anyone, especially myself, you are truly more deluded than I formerly thought.


The notion that Communism is "secular", that it is nothing more than an elaboration of the heartlessness of capitalism attempts to reconcile the ideas of Communism superficially with bourgeois ideology.
"The notion that Communism is secular" is a statement made from within the confines of a bourgeois ideology. In other words: A means for expressing an understanding within a certain context, like all forms of communication.
I think you're overlooking the obvious fact that people need ways to understand something within the confines of things they already understand.
If you're merely to use some esoteric jargon all the time you really are just failing at communication, entirely.

I call Communism "secular" because it is a simple way for general people to understand the concept generally, not to reconcile or uphold some reactionary bourgeois ideology nonsense. That is purely just a fictional qualification you tack on for no reason but to dismiss an argument that you don't like. You call it "meaningless" but ultimately that, in itself, is what is actually truly meaningless. It is just you wanting to pointlessly argue semantics for no real reason other than personal bias. Because you're not arguing sincerely, because you've always had a preset conclusion since even before this argument began.


What you fail to understand with your muddied relativism is that truth can only be articulated not from the "unknown" dimension (for this already is an insistence of the known) but from the very struggle between real existing ideas.
Just ask yourself this question seriously: Is your quote above even vaguely resembling anything I've said at all?
If you're honest with yourself you'll see that it does not even remotely resemble anything I've ever said. Again, if you are honest with yourself.

There is no "muddied relativism" in my arguments, no relativism at all. I have certainly not argued about some "unknown dimension". I have no idea where you are even quoting this "unknown" from, it's truly ridiculous to have quotes there. In fact, I searched the page - you are the only person who used the word "unknown". So who are you quoting? I assume it was actually meant for emphasis, for some reason, but ultimately these kind of incidents further demonstrate the lazy communication I spoke of earlier, the insincerity in discussion.



And here you prattling of "true" or "narrow minded" understandings of religion. It is you who does not fathom Marx's understanding of religion properly, it has nothing to with the inability to recognize that there are different religious beliefs: The point is that these "creative" beliefs you're referring to are, like new atheism, preferred abstractions with absolutely nothing of a semblance of being close to a genuine belief.
Again, putting words into Marx's mouth.
Could you also summon the spirit of Nikola Tesla? I have some important questions for him about that 'death ray' device he invented. Who needs a revolution when I could just take over the whole world? It'll make things easier.
Oh wait, that's right. You're not really Psychic, you're just crazy. Sorry about that.


Not only do you lack an understanding of how we recognize religion, you yourself lack an understanding of religion itself.
Sure, because you're so credible at these sort of things, right? And that evidence of yours, wow, how can I possibly argue?
Still waiting for you to summon Tesla, by the way. OH! I did it again. You are just so very convincing.


The fact that you are attempting to find a redeeming quality of religion in a society wherein ruling ideas have already destroyed the spiritual soul of religion (as it had existed in previous epochs) is nothing short of reactionary.
I can get you a crystal ball and some tarot cards. What else do you need for the ceremony?
Jokes aside, you have no real argument, just a lots and lots of fluff talk.

Interestingly enough, you at least acknowledge that there 'used to be' a "spiritual soul of religion". Maybe I really am getting through to you? Maybe these walls are just for show.
In any case, I think if you'd analyze the situation you'd realize that the "spiritual soul of religion" you speak of has not been entirely destroyed but merely hidden, if you will. All these social-constructs which are, as you explained, essentially what compose modern-Religion are merely just trappings of this essential 'spirit of religion'.

And for that matter, if you being honest, you'd see that I'm not a reactionary but a real Communist who believes that Communism is the bringing about of this "spiritual soul of religion", but moreso, just as primitive-Communism is not Communism itself, the primitive-soul-of-Religion is not the true 'soul of Religion' itself.

You get what I'm saying yet? You can call it reactionary if you want, but nothing I have suggested disregards, disrupts, or opposed Communist ideology. In fact, I only think some of what you have implied, and perhaps stated, does so. This has nothing to do with theory or history, as you continue to speak of. This is about practice. Philosophies have no merit if they are not intended to be practiced, and have no merit if they are ineffective when practiced. And in such, the reasons why I referred to the USSR and the PRC is because the violence against religion was ineffective. Religion was turned against the movement and used as a means, as a social relationship if that helps you understand it, as a vehicle to counter the Communist revolutions of those nations. Furthermore, the TRUE "horror" that these movements did was that society now looks to these movements, at Communism itself, as a barbaric and ruthless regime. Religion aids the bourgeois-ideologists to formulate Communism as an Evil, as an Injustice. It is a vehicle for bourgeois control in two ways: The establishment of Religion allows for the Bourgeoisie to proclaim and maintain their ideology, and that if this vehicle itself is being destroyed than it is a medium through which the bourgeoisie demonstrate the violence of the revolution and gain anti-violence sentimental support.

Just look at how people see Communism now, post-USSR, and then post-PRC and post-Korea.
Is it entirely the fault of their anti-religious policies? Absolutely no way. But is it worsened? Absolutely so, in every way.

So, my argument is not to maintain a reactionary vehicle for the bourgeois, that is stupid and idiotic and if you truly believe that is what I have been arguing then you have simply just not listened. What I argue is merely for a means of 'controlled violence'.

Rather than abolishing religion, rather than open-violence against religion. Tact will be used. Laws will be created barring bourgeois-privilege in Religion, just as it would be for all things. The key is to make sure Religion is never privileged, never exempted. This is opposed to the actions of the previous Communist Revolutions, and it seems opposed to your own ideology from what I gather. Most particularly because you wish to exempt Religion as an exception from Law so that your persecutions can become acceptable. You allow the bourgeois vehicle to transcend your own laws by forcing it into a transcendent state. By focusing on it, not as a reactionary force, but as a religious-reactionary force, you are giving the bourgeois a subliminal means of control. You provide them with that leverage, unknowingly.

What I argue is different. Any clergy or whomever else that stands up to oppose the revolution? They will be dealt with not through persecutions, not through open-violence, not through religious-exemptions, but through standard law and trials. They will not be made into exceptions because they are not exceptional. They will be espoused for being dissidents, rather than religious-upholders. They will be turned into the Terrorists, rather than the Revolutionaries. This mere appearance of controlled-violence will essentially maintain the balance of the revolution. It is some of the very same strategies that the US, and other governments, have developed and made so efficient today. It is demonstrated in practice over millions of people every day. In a revolutionary period, only the social-relationships will change, and governmental-strategies will only change with them only so far as they need to. A revolution without tact and strategy is a failed revolution.

And maybe you don't believe me that something new will come about from Religion after-the-fact. I really don't care. That is not really here nor there, to be honest. I don't care what you believe. The fact is that your theories do not work in practice and they will never work in practice.
You can rant on an escepade against religion all you want, you can surely condemn me and draw up as many rotten straw men full of pus and bile all you want. And you undoubtedly created a massive number of these men in the post to which I'm currently responding. However, the fact is this nonsense changes nothing for a broken theory - and that's all you have. As I once quoted Marx, I will once again paraphrase: Philosophers interpret the world in many ways, but the point is to change it.

Unless you can actually theorize an efficient means of change, one that can actually be practiced, your arguments are entirely meaningless.


The greatest crime of the Bolsheviks is that they did not round up every last cleric, every last scoundrel who took advantage of people's ignorance and crucify them.
This is exactly why you'd never get a revolution off the ground. You're plainly an idiot when it comes to this topic.

Go ahead, tell me how many supporters do you think you'd have for something like this. For this type of revolution.
Hey, do one better, go make a poll and see how many supporters you can get for this in just this forum alone, a forum composed mainly of Communist.
You think you can garner support for this sort of stupidity? You make me laugh. Tell me how a revolution like this is even supposed to occur.

You think people are just going to up and drop religious sentiment because it would create a better society? I think you have done far more than I could ever do to prove that your theories are not practical, and in no way strategic. That they are, and always will be, nothing but broken theories. So thank you. Hopefully others reading this will know exactly where you argue from, and not confuse your arguments with real knowledge only due to their length and way you forcefully use your text and demonstrate fallacy over fallacy.


Tell me, if during the French revolution the bourgeois put the clerics to the guillotine, what makes you think we're going to back on this legacy? If this was already enshrined into bourgeois ideology, why would we condemn or oppose this if Communism derives from bourgeois society? Only a REACTIONARY would.
I have no clue what you just said. The way I'm reading this you seem to be sincerely asking why Communism would oppose bourgeois society, and then calling everyone else a reactionary. This is just plain crazy nonsense.

I'm going to stop there, due to both time and the fact most of your post just blathers on ignorantly with fallacies and misconceptions. I think I've went over everything I need to go over, anyway.

[Antiochus]

Religion maybe, god, no. It would be foolish to say that Atheism is a per-requisite for Marxism (or any type of leftist political ideology) since these ideologies are supposedly grounded solely on material reasons. Therefore believing in a god(s) is about as relevant as liking the color green as far as being an "adherent" to Marxism/Anarchism.

I see people write book length posts, most without even the smallest inclination that they are wrong, and that the probability of a god not existing, cannot be "0". I am probably an atheist myself, although agnostic might now be a better word. I don't believe in a personal god.

I however find it a bit comical that that some leftists are so eager to adopt moral relativism into their own credence, not knowing (or realizing) that moral relativism is totally antithetical to any true revolutionary spirit. For all the talk about "scientific" socialism, there has to be, everyone must admit, a moral element to socialism. If not, why bother to do anything we are doing. None of us will probably see the full realization of a Socialist state, the people who espoused it 150 years ago certainly didn't.

I think Robespierre had a point when he said that the greatest practitioners of atheism were the kings and nobles of Europe.

Off course this is tangent to religion, which is inherently born out of superstition and corroded to suit those in power. Proof that it can be harnessed and corrupted to the core is that Jesus, a poor working-class Jew with a single mother, became the figure of worship in Versailles.

[Rafiq]

This is not how an argument works. You don't gloss over the bulk of my post, my points, only to re-state the very things I had already knocked down only to haughtily run away attempting to retain a semblance of personal dignity. What cowardice you display - If you can't fucking respond to my points accordingly, then don't respond at all. And save me your personal garbage - I don't give a fuck. Frankly, personally I don't always like situations like these when I'm proven right continually and in every possible way because it dulls the senses in other domains. You literally dumb me the fuck down with your nonsense. As such, I'm just going to skip all the drivel I've already addressed - keep that in mind if you respond with the same mentality.


No, the way I see it is that you are guising your own extreme bias of atheism within Marxism. You're attempting, and failing miserably, to make them inseparable. In fact, you admit to believing they are inseparable, as you stated earlier. The only source you have for this, the only legitimate argument you make, is a personal interpretation of one of Marx's writings, one which is widely considered one of his least important. Meanwhile, I've used multiple sources of his works to convey a wider perspective of what he might have actually believed. Therefore, you are the one who is therefore only twisting semantics that Marx used to ultimately justify your bias. I am doing no such thing, and you have no evidence of this.

I have provided you with a plethora of fucking evidence, and direct quotations from the sources you yourself provided which utterly contradict your nonsensical conclusions. Which you conveniently looked over. In case you didn't know, my post is still there - do you think that not responding to it somehow renders it non-existent, to the abyss of nothingness? The fact of the matter is that you literally brushed over segments of my post which explicitly addressed your nonsensical claims. I have explicitly addressed all of these so-called sources, there isn't a single quote you have provided by Marx which was absolutely abused and twisted, and at best taken completely out of context. You make a claim, and you ahve to provide evidence for that claim - your evidence does not stand. Without even coming close to explicitly addressing this, you claim that these are simply "my" interpretations. Are you fucking kidding me? Who cares if they're "my" interpretations, even if they were? That doesn't mean anything! You have failed to address such interpretations at all beyond making pretenses to subjectivity - and here's a fucking newsflash, Subversive - if mine are "just my interpretations" then who the fuck are you to even talk about Marx's quotes, considering that these are just as equally "your" interpretations too? What a spineless hypocrite you are. Do you actually think like a fucking child? Are you so intellectually bankrupt that you gloss over thoroughly made and detailed arguments as "nothing" because they aren't all "backed up" by citations? Again, this is anti-intellectualism at it's fucking finest - where are Marx's citations in his very polemics? Do you even know how an argument works? The fact of the matter is that it's clear you haven't a semblance of an understand of Marx. I have demonstrated every source you have used as literally contradicting you, or at the very best not even coming close to supporting the conclusions you've drawn from them.


"The reality of the matter" is that you do not participate in discussions honestly or even intellectually, and I'd prefer to speak with someone who has not already-decided the conclusion prior to the discussion itself. What is even the point of such a discussion? It is meaningless. You seem to be an intelligent person but you do not seem to actually utilize that intelligence. It is a shame, really.


What you fail to understand is that even if this is true, it doesn't matter what kind of fucking mentality I have - you address the content of my posts, or you fuck off. I am posting something - an argument - it cannot be "wrong" because Rafiq is arrogant or because Rafiq is an asshole. If you cannot demonstrate how exactly it is wrong, which you have clearly not, keep your fucking mouth shut and don't be such a child who needs to get the last word in.


If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that he wanted religion to be rejected entirely. That this rejection of religion, as a whole, entirely, is the basis for Communism. To me, honestly, this makes no sense at all.

This is not what "I" believe, this is literally, explicitly stated by Marx. 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. Now naswer me directly: Does this fucking sound like someone who calls for the retention of religion? According to you, what Marx really meant here was that he was arguing for the emergence of a "true" religion - that for Marx, happiness actually meant replacing religion as it is today with a new one, or allowing it to flourish. How the FUCK does this make sense? What is even CLOSE To indicating this in any of Marx's texts? On the contrary, we have:


The decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and citizen, religious man and citizen, is neither a deception directed against citizenhood, nor is it a circumvention of political emancipation, it is political emancipation itself, the political method of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

What does Subversive have to say about this? According to Subversive's interpretation (apparently he holds the right to conceit - by merit of being a unique soul he's allowed to come to whatever fucking conclusions he wants without any regard for evidence or fact - reality can be what he WANTS it to be), Marx here isn't referring to "religion", which he also regards as the eternal heart of mankind (allegedly). Marx is referring to "state religion" - he's actually calling for "true religion" to come about. To add insult to injury, in the same manner Subversive previously argued Marx was referring to "true" private property" being consequential of the abolition of private property. What a STUPID fucking argument! Don't you dare attempt to slither your way out of this one, Subversive: Don't you dare fucking ignore the evidence I have provided and the iron refutations of your utterly blasphemous "interpretations" of Marx only to force me to repeat myself by merit of your false pretense to ignorance. It's not surprising that an apologist of the dishonest is himself dishonest to the bone. You commit the error of thinking things can be "interpreted" because we want them to conform to an idea. Or what about Engels, was he simply at odds with Marx regarding the religious question? Provide us with evidence of this, because it's well known that:


And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch27.htm



The above quotation, taken directly from his Critique, essentially summarizes everything I have so far stated. That 'truth of this world' comes about by 'unmasking' religion as self-estrangement. That religion is the criticism of law and politics.


Are you trolling me right now? He did not fucking say religion was the criticism of law and politics, he said that Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics. The point for Marx was attacking the world of which religion reflected. Even then, you're creating a straw man - no one claims that religion is the primary focus of the problem, the point is that it is a problem and both Marx and Engels recognized that it will be destroyed following the destruction of the present social order. Do you deny this, and on what basis? The difference between you and I - Subversive, is that I've explicitly addressed your so-called 'interpretations' by pointing out they were wrong, using reason, using evidence. You respond to my rebuttals by claiming it's just "my" interpretation, but that would also mean that what you're saying is completely full of shit, by your own qualifications for invalidity, because it's "your" interpretation too. That's not how a fucking argument works - do you think that when debating, people attempt to discredit ARGUMENTS by saying "Well, you're biased, this is your argument, it's not true" and whatever? No, you have to point out errors, you have to explicitly address things. What an arrogant, dismissive piece of work you are. And it's not so simple: Marx was NOT saying that religion ought to be left alone - answer directly - what the FUCK do you think Marx meant when he said to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked except that once religion has been unmasked, the non-religious foundations of religion also ought to be unmasked? What "interpretation" do you provide us, and why the fuck is this your interpretation other than some kind of external aversion toward religion? The difference is that we Marxists have an "anti-religious bias" precisely drawn from the influence of Marx - he's the original sin, not Richard Dawkins. So what the fuck do you have to say for yourself? His point wasn't that "politics was the real problem" but that religion is a reflection of a real world, and criticizing religion necessarily means criticizing this reflection - politics being a part of it. In the same text:


This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

In your mind, is Marx saying that all societies are, and will always be inverted worlds, including Communism? Are you trying to say that Marx claims that the human essence will never acquire any true reality, in saying that it has not? Be honest with yourself - do you ACTUALLY buy into the shit you post here? I've already addressed this nonsense!


I have therefore also explained that in these contexts, the "Religion" Marx speaks of, is equal to the force which is the current-state of Religion, the 'Religion-as-State', as I have called it, which is ultimately a form of religion which can and is abused to establish law, dogmas, through the means of an Institution, the Church, or as you state it: The Clergy.



such as that Religion is the 'Soul' and 'Heart' of the world, and many other metaphors that Marx commonly used to demonstrate a sort of sympathy for religion. That he, never once, entirely condemned religion as a philosophical or spiritual entity, but only as a political force.
In fact, both Marx and Engels had mentioned things like early-Christianity and some similarities to Communism. For example, Engels wrote:

There is nothing to suggest that saying: 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 is a mark of sympathy, it is actually a mark of utmost criticsim. Marx's point was directed at those who are unwilling to criticize the conditions through which religion derives, while at the same time criticizing religion. Do you actually fucking think that saying religion is the opium of the people is casting onto it a sympathetic light? Do you think Marx means to say that the world is irrevocably, inevitably and eternally soulless and heartless? Are you suggesting that for Marx, a Communist world will be soulless and heartless, supplemented by "true" religion? Or is that too a straw man, Subversive? Use reason - fuck me, forget about me - what the fuck do you think makes more sense here Regarding "early Christianity" I already fucking addressed this: "Furthermore" this cretinously ignores the fact that there are countless examples in history, recognized by both Marx and Engels, of "Communism" and all of them took a religious character. This isn't evidence that religion in their time, or today is capable of being reconciled with Communism, it is evidence that before capitalism ideology could only be expressed in religious terms. There was nothing "outside" religion, there was no secularism, there was no rationalism devoid of superstition, the relations to production were not sophisticated enough to even prompt this level of thinking. This isn't a "comparison" with a Communist movement as such but, as Marx even mentioned in the linked text above, a means of deriving legitimacy for the movement in instances of its alleged historic expression. Marx, a good Hegelian, didn't actually think this was a "Communist movement" but recognized that it can be articulated as such only because conditions today make Communist ideology possible. Speaking of Hegel, this is absolutely a recognition that religion today takes a completely different character and form than it did previosuly, that something might have existed before and something today have the same content does not mean they have the same form, or function. "Early Christianity" didn't exist under the backdrop of violent anti-religious sentiment, of the age of reason, of rationalism and a scientific revolution which condemned all forms of darkness, and if it did, it would be reactionary.

As Marx said: The political constitution was until now the religious sphere, the religion of popular life, the heaven of its universality in opposition to the earthly existence of its actuality. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch02.htm#003

For Marx, religion before the age of reason was the only real expression of political force. Following it, religion has been reduced to a purely reactionary character.


Citation needed.

[...]

In fact, honestly, who really cares what he MAY or MAY NOT have meant? Why bother with interpretation of things he obviously left vague? If he wanted it clarified I'm sure he would have clarified it. It does not really matter that much.

You want a citation? Re-read the fucking sentence! Why WOULD there be a direct fucking citation when Marx wasn't even bothering with the argument between Rafiq and Subversive? Why would he have literally MADE a sentence to squash what was essentially a non-problem as far as an argument goes? No one was so stupid (I mean "creative") as to interpret his claims as being sympathetic to religion - any idiot can see clearly he designated religion as a legitimizer of a heartless world. What indication has Marx made that it's all futile, that the world will always be heartless and soulless? This isn't apologizing for religion, it is ruthlessly criticizing a world which needs religion. Hence, Marx said: The demand to abolish illusions is a demand to abolish a condition which requires illusions when explicitly referring to religion! Do you have an iota of an understanding of Marx's young humanism, when this text was written? He most certainly did not say this. This IS clear, it's just that you're so fucking ignorant that apparently 19th century writing styles in an entirely different polemical context has to conform to Subversive's mind or it isn't clear enough! So clearly you don't care for a citation, you want to misconstrue Marx's texts to supplement your petty sentimentalities regarding religion - having a discussion on what Marx actually meant IS important. And we've been over combating religion - it's YOU who said "Marx would have disagreed" - well clearly Marx DOES NOT disagree, Subversive! So retract your fucking statement, or shut the fuck up! You claim I have 'yet' to address such points regarding the Soviet Union and China, but on the contrary:

How the fuck were these "witch hunts" owed to the attack on religion in the USSR or China? Name me one "genocide" which, even if occured, was irrevocably a result of the anti-religious campaigns in the Soviet Union (which were autonomous from the state, only recieving support and funding. The league of militant atheists was established voluntarily) and in China. The only thread in common is a reactionary pathology which is horrified at the "excesses" of the social transformations and upheavals which occurred in such countries. The fact is that there was a hard time stamping out religion because of the peasant demographic majority, not because religion exists independently of any historic epoch. The point is rather simple: Why were people fond of religion, and why was this only a problem in rural areas in the Soviet Union? People are fond of religion for a reason: Hint - that reason is not because religion is magical. Like what the fuck are you even talking about Subversive? You literally just make shit up. You project your twisted reactionary pathology as some kind of given regarding these societies. And don't dishonestly pretend like you oppose the anti-religious campaigns because you think they were ineffective. You oppose them because pathologically, you're horrified by the idea of it - you're horrified by the idea of burning churches and crushing all world legitimizations of oppression and the existing order. Whether it was successful or not makes no difference to you.


and

What you fail to understand is that the only thing which separates a religion from a backwoods Kansas cult, is power and structural power at that. It is violence. Destroying religion was synonymous with destroying the power of the clergy, and it is precisely that which horrifies you
The Soviets, and the Chinese destroyed the structural power of the religious establishment. In your mind, this translates into genocide against people who have religious views, completely ignoring why they had those religious views and on what grounds they were practiced and affirmed. At no point in Soviet or Chinese history was it illegal to have religious beliefs, to add insult to fucking injury. These are lies conjured by bourgeois ideologues so horrified at the emancipation of society from religion - removing the legitimizing power of religion is scary for people like you.


Yes, because the godless reds who tampered with the holy instruments of god paid the price with the degeneration of the revolution, nay? What is this if not some superstitious drivel? How the FUCK did state atheism lead to the degeneration of the revolution? If anything, the degeneration of the revolution was solidified through the re-introduction of state support for the Orthodox Church and the reintroduction of religion into public life. Using your logic, degeneration should have coincided with more "religious oppression' and state atheism, but the OPPOSITE was true! The point is simple, such a pathology, such a fear of "imposing" atheism, when this didn't reflect the reality of the Soviet Union or China (to add you associate it with genocide and all this shit), has its grounding in a real ideological foundation. We know this because this WASN'T the reality in those countries - you hold this belief independently of the facts.


What violence "against the proletariat"? Are you suggesting there was an actual genocide against people in the USSR? And here's a fucking news flash: The attack on the exploiters themselves, the bourgeoisie, caused harm to non-exploiters too. That doesn't disqualify its contingency as being based on an attack on the institution that is the Orthodox Church. It's a fucking war. Get over it. You keep talking out of your ass: The religious "victims", if they even existed, were rural peasants, not proletarians. The industrial working class, most of whom perished during the civil war (but even during their later emergence) were hardly religious. You keep talking out of your ass and it's pathetic. there were some proletarians who backed the counter-revolution: Was fighting them now "against the interests of the proletariat"? No! The designation of something as proletarian, or non-proletarian isn't SIMPLY reducible to demographics but in whose traceable interest this is in. The function of religion had been to keep them ignorant and weak, it was an organized perpetuation of ignorance, darkness and reaction.


So I haven't addressed this, Subversive? I haven't "touched upon" such points? No, you simply haven't read my fucking post, because you so arrogantly think that you are qualified not to have to - so confident in your drivel. You accuse me of being "set" in my beliefs regardless of evidence, yet we can see here how this is precisely what you are doing- you're deliberately ignoring the evidence I have provided, or de-emphasizing ts importance solely on these grounds. The fact of the matter is that your problem wit the anti-religious campaigns is a sentimental and moral one. I don't give a fuck about it - no honest Communist can have any ethical problems with blowing up churches and destroying sacred idols. Nobody has made the argument that people should be forced to be atheists - that is nonsensical! What has been argued is that an attack on the clergy and its power irrevocably would mean an attack on religion. As stated, religion derives its power from real earthly power - take that earthly power away and it will die away rabidly. Anti-religious campaigns which were directed at 1. Removing religion from the public sphere and schools 2. Suppressing the "freedoms' of religious institutions in dominating the lives of children and having a monopoly on the peasant's understanding of the world was "forcing" atheism. What's hilarious is that the Bolsheviks tolerated clerics from all religions albeit sometimes engaging in the forced closings of religious institutions. Never were they all completely shut down. Likewise, in the PRC, religion WAS eventually almost completely tolerated, even under Mao. Funny that the degeneration of these states coincided with their more opened "tolerance" of religion. Marx also stated: Everyone should be able to attend his religious as well as his bodily needs without the police sticking their noses in. But the Workers' party ought, at any rate in this connection, to have expressed its awareness of the fact that bourgeois "freedom of conscience" is nothing but the toleration of all possible kinds of religious freedom of conscience, and that for its part it endeavors rather to liberate the conscience from the witchery of religion - Marx is explicitly saying that the aim of the worker's party is to free the conscience from the witchery of religion. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm


The first point supports my statements: That Religion cannot be destroyed without, essentially, destroying humanity itself.


Except Marx doesn't refer to humanity OR any "possible" world but the world as it exists today, which he relentlessly stressed he was fighting to change. What utter nonsense you tout! Let me in on the secret - why do you keep arguing? Why? You KNOW you're fucking wrong, and if you don't, you're delusional! Marx's point was that religion is a reflection of the conditions of specific conditions of the world, not simply by merit of the world existing but a world - class society. Marx said:

. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#219


Then why didn't they? Why don't we see more writings from Marx or his critics about religion? Why wasn't this turned into some huge issue prior to the USSR? Why wasn't this turning away religious-people from the Communist movement prior to the USSR?


Religious people had always been turned away form the Communist movement, if they were significantly at all - from the onset it was perceived as godless, depraved and so on by the religious. It was always an issue - you're literally just so ill-informed about the history of the movement, so full of the shit fed to you about the "religious persecutions" in the USSR that you can't possibly fathom that the issue of religion was dealt with. Marx didn't allocate an enormous amount of time into religion because for him, and I am paraphrasing a direct quote which you conveniently also skimmed over - fighting against religion is like fighting against the boogeyman - we all know it's bullshit and the task is now to ask why people still believe in bullshit.


So if what you're saying is true - then that's a massive coincidence, don't you think?


If we accept hte presumption that: If what you say is true, the vast majority of people who have read or even heard about his works either always misinterpret him and the people who misinterpret him simply never find a reason to argue against this concept, or else generally no one, not even the people in the movement, ever actually read any of his works. But it's common fucking knowledge that Marx as an anti-theist is a fact, very few people have attempted to refute it and those who have primarily derived not from the first generation of Marxists (You know, Lenin who explicitly talked about destroying religion as his "interpretation" of Marx) but from apologists trying to make Marx appealing to others in the past few decades - but even they fervently recognize Marx opposed religion and was explicitly an atheist. It's not a controversy.


I'm sure you'll find many, many Leftists whose only contention with the Communist movement, as it has developed and as you suggest it should be, is the stance on religion.


Replace "religion" with "women's rights" or the "abolition of the family". Is that no true Scotsman's fallacy? The fact of the matter is that people have religious reservations for a reason, and the whole fucking point is that they're NOT derived as being divorced from the world. You pre-suppose that religion is some kind of eternal divine reflection of humanity "external" from such trivial political manners, when we have made it pretty fucking clear that the oppose is true - that religion is a reflection of the existing conditions of the world, not some preferred abstraction. Do you even fucking understand logic? You can't pick and choose what constitutes being a Communist - you cannot consistently be a Marxist or even a Communist in the 21st century while having such sensitivities regarding religion. You can fight alongside the movement, surely, you can partake in the force of Communism - but in one way or another, such sensitives will have to meet their maker.


Citation needed for this 'violent opposition of all religious influences'.


Even though I already provided evidence above, here is Engels:

Fortunately it is easy enough to be an atheist today. Atheism is so near to being self-obvious with European working-class parties nowadays — although in certain countries it is often enough like that of the Spanish Bakuninist who maintained that it was against all socialism to believe in God but that the Virgin Mary was a different matter, every decent socialist ought naturally to believe in her. It can even be said of the German Social-Democratic workers that atheism has already outlived itself with them: this purely negative word no longer has any application as far as they are concerned inasmuch as their opposition to faith in God is no longer one of theory but one of practice; they have purely and simply finished with God, they live and think in the world of reality and are therefore materialists. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/refugee-literature/ch02.htm

As a matter of fact, Engels opposed prohibition of religion as a lawful degree because it gave religion too much breathing space as a category.


You are not perfect. You are not always right. You can't read people's thoughts. And you can't speak to the dead. Realize these things and just get over it.


I don't have to fucking read thoughts, it's self evident from your posts. And it doesn't matter if I'm perfect or not, that's utterly meaningless - unless you can demonstrate HOW I am wrong, as far as this discussion is concerned yes I am fucking 100% right. You might privately infer that I should be wrong at least one or two points, but you can't actualize this into an actual argument because it's meaningless - you can lean toward an orientation of thinking something, but to actually profess a stance in an argument means you have to back it the fuck up. I don't care about being open minded - I told you this before, there's a difference between thinking openly with your mind, and thinking openly with your ass - I don't have to give credence to your claims simply by merit of it being "another perspective". Because NONE OF THIS is contingent on our unique experiences, REASON is external, through WHICH we articulate - it is out there, on the table for all - objective truth is objectively possible by merit of our objective social complexity. We've been over this before, but you keep on with your garbage and muddied relativism.


no relativism at all.


That's why every fucking person whose had an encounter with you, save for that dolt Ilstar, has accused you of relativism.


In any case, I think if you'd analyze the situation you'd realize that the "spiritual soul of religion" you speak of has not been entirely destroyed but merely hidden, if you will. All these social-constructs which are, as you explained, essentially what compose modern-Religion are merely just trappings of this essential 'spirit of religion'.


No, the fucking point is that the spiritual soul of religion designates the inabilty to separate ideology from religious expression. That's the point - this soul was destroyed with bourgeois modernization, without the help of Communists. That doesn't paint it in a sympathetic light. I could easily say the spiritual soul of Nazism was utterly discredited with the morale and heroism of the Red Army proving superior, and it would get at the same thing as far as "support" goes. You don't KNOW what I fucking mean by spiritual soul - I don't mean some kind of mystical grand truth but the essence of religion as being the sole monopoly on ideology, philosophy and politics. Clearly you don't know how to fucking read - and it's hilarious because at every which turn you attempt to misconstrue my words as somehow being sympathetic toward religion by cheap buzzwords which somehow automatically indicate some kind of sympathy. You DON'T know what you're talking about - CLEARLY, so stop acting like it!


And in such, the reasons why I referred to the USSR and the PRC is because the violence against religion was ineffective.


Is that why levels of education, and the flourishing of the sciences (save for Lysenkoism, which is greatly exaggerated anyway) reached a pinnacle in coincidence? It was rather effective for what it aimed at - and its reintroduction coincided with the reintroduction with nationalism at the EXACT same fucking time - so was the campaign against nationalism ineffective too? Your logic doesn't even fucking work.


Is it entirely the fault of their anti-religious policies? Absolutely no way. But is it worsened? Absolutely so, in every way.


Stop using other people as a medium for your own sick reactionary pathologies - it's worsened for YOU, Subversive, and while I am sure a great many share your reservations, you're projecting your own aversions toward these states by innocently claiming "What about what others think!" it's profoundly idiotic. Since we're not talking about propagandizing but theory, I don't give a fuck about what other people think - this is the truth and considering I live in a country where a significant number of adults think angels are actually real, the truth isn't exactly very easy to imbibe for "the people". Likewise, any idiot can recognize that such a pathology will be swept away with the organized mass movement which creates a new dichotomy of politics - the present aversion towards the USSR is not an honest articulation of facts, it is ideological. Such ideology is sustained by power - the winners write history after all. Any critical examination of Soviet society will allow any idiot to see how much shit they have to make up to sustain it. And we know it's a pathology because of things like the fact that anti-Communists regularly have to make shit up to maintain their persona - they have to make up quotes and so on. Such ideology cannot be thought by appealing to their ignorance, but power. It is only through power, through which truth can radiate, it is therefore the struggle for power that will allow for the realization of the very truth I am presenting.


Rather than abolishing religion, rather than open-violence against religion. Tact will be used. Laws will be created barring bourgeois-privilege in Religion, just as it would be for all things.


This necessarily entails the abolition of religion. In virtually every Communist state which disembowled the power of the church, even if they allowed it autonomy as in East Germany, widespread atheism followed. Today, East Germans are mostly atheists even now. Again, without its structures of power in society, religion is nothing more than a fucking cult. What separates your religion from Scientology? What separates your beautiful, "human" religions from ponzy scheme cults, or Jim Jones esque religious retreats? What separates them from new age drivel up to UFO cults? Tell me, Subversive! Nobody argues for abolishing religion by decree, but destroying the power of religion by destroying that which sustains religion. It is nonsense that anyone argues religion can be fought by making it completely illegal to practice, and it never has in our history.


Go ahead, tell me how many supporters do you think you'd have for something like this. For this type of revolution.


The Left has been kissing the right ass cheek of religious power for a few decades now, and we don't have any more supporters than we would otherwise have if we violently opposed it. The fact of the matter is that I don't really give a shit if it puts people off, because 99% of the views espoused by any honest Marxist and Communist WILL in fact not yield supporters. I do not care to be dishonest with the working people - to sugarcoat the blood letting that would inevitably follow from a revolution. Truth is truth, no matter how attractive it may appear. The point is that as an intellectual, I can see this - through the intensification of the worker's movement, the working people too will see this as they always have. And popular sentiment has always been more grotesque than the imaginations of petty intellectuals like me - recall that during the French revolution it was the plebian masses who put the heads of clergy and aristocrats and spikes, dancing around with them and so on. I drive such poetry from real, lived experiences - not imposed by intellectuals but the inevitable rage which will be unleashed in a revolution against the spiritual apologists for exploitation and domination.


You think people are just going to up and drop religious sentiment


As they previously had in history - again the problem of religion was only a problem in rural areas. Take for example East Germany, which was relatively advanced - religion was never a fucking problem and yet initially it was discouraged. Take a look at the world around you as far as the western world is concerned - religion is already in retreat and has been (aside from recent degeneration) - bourgeois society has already with a battering ram hampered down the foundations of religion. Tell me why education and irreligion correlate so goddamn well? Why countries where people are well off, Scandandavian countries, people tend not to be religious? Through the course of the worker's struggle, bourgeois ideology will be opposed as integral to the edifice of the struggle through its intensification, including opposition to religion. Give me one meaningful instance where proletarian struggle didn't irrevocably lead to a drastic drop of religious sentiment among the movement (the industrial proletariat, of course). Give me one fucking example.


The way I'm reading this you seem to be sincerely asking why Communism would oppose bourgeois society, and then calling everyone else a reactionary.


Because opposing bourgeois society from the standpoint of an older social order and older social constructs (religion) IS reactionary, it is PRECISELY reactionary. On petite bourgeois socialism: In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

Bourgeois society is only opposed while pre-supposing its achievements in retrospect to feudalism. By your logic, we would have opposed the French revolution on grounds of opposing the emerging bourgeois society. How profoundly idiotic - and you dare make pretensions to Marx's views without even knowing their core?

[Бай Ганьо]

Yes, hem day, this is precisely the origin of religion. Our human nature, i.e. our genes had sparked spontaneous beliefs in men, through which they were able to gather more followers: Thus, institutions like the Catholic Church were born. Or might we recognize that beliefs exist for a reason, that the structural perpetuation of certain beliefs are necessary for a reason. If we were to take all the backwoods cults that had arisen in the late 20th century, is there really a fundamental difference with regard to belief? There is none. Hypothetically, let us assume that a belief forms among people that Gliese 581-d is most certainly habitable and that we ought to visit it immediately. After all, if we assume all beliefs have a definitive origin, and that the power behind such beliefs is not given to chance, then it is not unreasonable to assume that this could be a spontaneous belief in a society which has done away with the necessity of ("old"in your mind) religion. Now carefully explain to us all (and if you would rather use a different example of a "belief" which COULD form, be my guest) how this could lead to something similar to the institution that is the Catholic Church, with its superstitious rituals, its holistic ethical framework, and so on. Are you joking?

Capitalism has already done away with religion as such, so religion as it exists today must make pretenses to the impossible. Before the age of reason, religion couldn't rely on the "gaps", as the filling of them was irrevocably owed to religion, which wasn't divorced from science.

Nowhere have I reduced human nature to only genetics, and nowhere have I pretended that beliefs are the only cause for the establishment of religion nor that they play a crucial role for its further development. Also, I wasn't equating beliefs with religious beliefs (example of a non-religious belief: private property): cults, dogmas, gatherings and institutions aren't necessarily inspired by religion. What you should have understood from what I wrote is that beliefs are a conditio sine qua non for the very start of irrational movements, religions incl., and that something makes that humans rationalize much less than one would like to expect, which makes them easy preys for all kinds of people who utilize belief as a means of oppression and control. I called that something "human nature", knowing that philosophers and scientists have been debating the concept of human nature for ages without ever reaching an agreement on what constitutes its core elements. I guess I shouldn't have done that, but I think I was careful enough not to say that "beliefs are part of human nature". I wrote "seem to be" and was thus referring to an impression, albeit a false one, not to a fact. I would certainly never say that "religion is part of human nature", nor that it seems to be part of it, for as you mentioned religion is grounded in social realities, and I cannot even understand how someone could have the impression that religion is part of human nature.


Like I have stated before, I have studied religion for quite a long time. I'm quite familiar with its history, very likely even more familiar with it than you.

This is completely irrelevant in the discussion we're having. The debate is not about the practice of religions or their history but about what they essentially all are and their relationship with atheism. This doesn't require to study religions for 10 years.


Religion maybe, god, no. It would be foolish to say that Atheism is a per-requisite for Marxism (or any type of leftist political ideology) since these ideologies are supposedly grounded solely on material reasons. Therefore believing in a god(s) is about as relevant as liking the color green as far as being an "adherent" to Marxism/Anarchism.

That atheism is no prerequisite for Marxism is kinda obvious, but it would be the logical outcome of a perfect revolution, i.e. getting rid of all systems of oppression, religion incl.


I see people write book length posts, most without even the smallest inclination that they are wrong, and that the probability of a god not existing, cannot be "0".

Where in this thread have you read that it is 0?

Speaking for myself, the only point I am making is that the lack of evidence shows that the probability of a supernatural being's existence is so small that it wouldn't be rational to believe in it. The burden of proof lies upon the theist. That's Russel's teapot.

[Stirnerian]

I expect the work of capitalism to be epochal; that is, not only do I completely reject the idea that we entered 'late capitalism' after the 1960s, I suspect that we're only now moving out of its earliest stages.

Consider the fact that the feudal system also had a prototypical form in the Roman latifundia, roughly analogous to the early forms of Dutch capitalism, and one might well question whether or not we're very far removed from an equivalent of the fifth or sixth centuries as a parallel.

Insofar as the religious question is concerned, I am selectively hostile to it, and have an approach towards it far closer to that of Friedrich Nietzsche than to Karl Marx. I am not at all concerned with its 'irrationality'; on some level men are incapable of complete Reason, in the abstract. We all see through a mirror darkly.

But Abrahamic monotheism is problematic as a particular form of irrationality. In large part this stems from its very constitution as monotheism: it does not lend itself to democracy nearly so well as a pluralistic polytheism, which by its nature compels any society which accepts competing religious claims (not merely 'tolerates' them, but actually integrates them into its civil fabric) to acknowledge the validity of competing truth-claims.

In this I likely betray my inclination towards anarchism, but I am an epistemological perspectivist and not much interested in the dialectic. The totalizing tendency of monotheism is incompatible on a foundational level with democratic and republican processes.

Which leads me back to my point that the Revolution - the big one, the final one, the one we dream of - is likely many centuries away. We do not know what the religious make-up of the world will be then. I do not expect atheism to become the predominant view on the planet; I do expect that the developed bourgeois societies will gradually shift towards something functionally approximating ancient pagan polytheism. I believe they will have to, because I do believe capitalism is in the broadest sense too much inclined towards a power structure geared towards multiplicity to long tolerates monotheistic fundamentalism.

Don't get me wrong: it'll use monotheism whilst it's here. But it has long preferred to look back in nostalgic reverie, at least in the West, at the Greeks and Romans. It might eventually try to emulate that model in its spiritual life. One might take the 'New Age' dippyness of the 60s upper-middle-class as a manifestation of this broad trend.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

When the revolution comes, I'm truly not going to give a damn if some of the people on my side of the barricades believe in a deity(ies) or not. I don't think such beliefs render someone incapable of struggling to build communism.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

When the revolution comes, I'm truly not going to give a damn if some of the people on my side of the barricades believe in a deity(ies) or not. I don't think such beliefs render someone incapable of struggling to build communism.
True. We should instead be worried about those who will still be infected by the myths and lies of liberalism and capitalist democracy.

[Culicarius]

I've been taking a back seat for this discussion and I'm pleased (and surprised) at how much was produced. I'm pretty much in agreement with Rafiq and can't fathom anything to oppose those arguments. I'm also strongly rethinking why I hold onto Buddhist beliefs; I already basically removed any mythos or metaphysical aspects from it so I see no reason to continue onto it due to other teachings (i.e. coping with stress and anxiety)

I think it thoroughly answered my questions regarding religions with structure and power like Christianity and that people can hold onto these beliefs and believe in revolution, though, I agree that at some point they're likely to find their views conflict too much and discard them for revolutionary thinking.

Regarding other beliefs like indigenous people (i.e. pick out any native american tribe and their beliefs), these don't seem to have power to me. Honestly my main concern was more about these, as I want to be aware of the rest of the world and not have a euro-centric attitude towards abolition of religion. I've read some words from those who live and still have roots in those religions and cultures (and share a belief in communism) that the whole, kill religion thing disregards the importance spirituality has had in these peoples. But, I think they refer more towards any forced suppression of religious practices.

I imagine, come the revolution, if these more personal beliefs still exist, people will either discard them or they'd naturally die out after a generation or two. Which is something I don't have a problem with as I don't think the beliefs of Sami people or of Cherokee people play into suppressing people with a power structure in the way that Christianity does.

[Subversive]

For people who already know Rafiq is an unreasonable troll, or just wish to skip the bickering, skip down to the bolded text for the main discussion.


This is not how an argument works. You don't gloss over the bulk of my post, my points, only to re-state the very things I had already knocked down only to haughtily run away attempting to retain a semblance of personal dignity. What cowardice you display - If you can't fucking respond to my points accordingly, then don't respond at all.
You're one to speak of "how an argument works", Rafiq.
The vast majority of your posts are nothing but straw man arguments. They intentionally ignore points that contradict essentially everything you argue, and might ultimately demonstrate the pointlessness of your, frankly, utter stupidity. And not only that but you constantly dissolve your posts into mindless large-print, blatant insults, expletives, and other forms of ridiculous nonsense - all of which demonstrate you to be nothing but a troll.
So yes, I can gloss over the bulks of your posts - because they are honestly extremely ignorant and meaningless. The "bulk" you refer to is fluff. You have not once 'knocked down' any points I've made. Quite the opposite. More than once you have even supported my arguments, unknowingly. It is quite silly.

If anyone is a 'coward' here, that would be you. You use nothing but fallacies and constant insults, like above, instead of actually trying to argue. You waste so much time. So no more of this childishness. You do this only for vanity - because you can't seem to control your emotions. What a vain child you are.



And save me your personal garbage - I don't give a fuck.
Oh, how convenient for you. You get to spray ad hominem out at everyone else but when it comes back to you suddenly you don't care?
This just demonstrates your hypocrisy, egotism, and extreme dishonesty.


Frankly, personally I don't always like situations like these when I'm proven right continually and in every possible way because it dulls the senses in other domains.
Oh, how the infallible god-man, Rafiq, blesses us with his words!
Again, you think you are utter perfection, this extreme narcissism you portray, the epitome of arrogance, everything points towards complete delusion.

It would be so convenient for you if you were "proven right continually an in every possible way", but a claim like that is obviously just nonsense. You are not infallible. You are not a god-man. You are not perfect. Your claims don't become truth simply by speaking them. Your beliefs do not form truth itself. How utterly delusional you must be to think that you have proven anything right at all, let alone everything and continuously. You are, by far, the biggest troll I've ever met on the internet, Rafiq. Pathetic. Now, I won't be responding to your dishonesty and ridiculous nonsense anymore. It is so extremely childish. What is the point of all this? Just stop.



I have provided you with a plethora of fucking evidence, and direct quotations from the sources you yourself provided which utterly contradict your nonsensical conclusions.
Quite the opposite, in fact. This "plethora" of evidence and "direct quotations" does not exist. And nothing you have provided so far contradicts my statements, as I already stated.

Of the post I was replying to last, you had a whole of two quotations in quote boxes, both regarding something that was a complete straw man. The other quotes you provided, outside of quote boxes, were nothing but quotes being repeated after I'd already gave them to you. All of which, every quote, required your own personal interpretation in order to even make a point, of which it then becomes nothing more than a claim - claims which themselves have no evidence or support - claims which are meaningless because they are, exactly that, nothing but claims.
Prior to that post, we find roughly the same number of quotations everywhere. All relying, again, on your personal interpretations and not on anything meaningful. So where exactly is this "plethora of evidence"? Who do you think you are fooling? Anyone can go back and see these posts. You are fooling no one but yourself here.

The fact is, it doesn't really exist. As usual, you are a liar.
You are merely once again talking about your claims, your own interpretations. Those meaningless words which you believe, in themselves (because only that they come from you), they hold truth.

This is not "evidence" Rafiq. It SURELY was never a "plethora". This is meaningless garbage. A plethora of meaningless garbage, that's what it was.
On the contrary, I believe I've quoted Marx more than you have, if not just as much. And I'm pretty sure I've quoted more sources and from more pages, as well. I wanted to point out that I'm addressing a higher understanding of Marx, rather than just stripping away context to quote-mine, as you seem to try to do.

So then, I noticed in the most recent post you started to quote more, as if the most recent post would somehow counter-act the lack of evidence in your previous posts and suddenly make your new claim, that you have provided a "plethora of evidence", true. However, that's obviously not how things work. Not how arguments work, not how anything works. Such lies are so obvious.



The fact of the matter is that you literally brushed over segments of my post which explicitly addressed your nonsensical claims.
No, what I "brushed over" were numerous straw men that had literally nothing to do with my claims.
I would have noted they were straw men fallacies, and clarified, but then I'd just have been wasting so much time and just repeating myself over and over again, like you do.


You make a claim, and you ahve to provide evidence for that claim - your evidence does not stand.
You have yet to even provide real evidence. You seem to get completely stuck up on this concept, as if it were truly a foreign concept to you. So who are you to speak of this?
Obviously my evidence will stand up so long as you don't have a legitimate argument and only make claims which you can't and won't support - which is everything you've provided so far.
In the respects of valid points you did make, I addressed those, and you have yet to refute anything I have addressed without simply making yet another claim.



Without even coming close to explicitly addressing this, you claim that these are simply "my" interpretations. Are you fucking kidding me? Who cares if they're "my" interpretations, even if they were?
I have demonstrated your interpretations to be biased and delusional, as well as contradictory to Marx's own writings. So who cares? Everyone should. Everyone should care about the truth.


and here's a fucking newsflash, Subversive - if mine are "just my interpretations" then who the fuck are you to even talk about Marx's quotes, considering that these are just as equally "your" interpretations too?
Unlike you, what I have provided are numerous quotes, real evidence, even from multiple sources and from overall context in order to demonstrate the truth of my "interpretations".

How do you not understand this concept? You keep talking about this so-called "right to conceit", and even argue that nothing can be interpreted:

You commit the error of thinking things can be "interpreted" because we want them to conform to an idea.
Yet you ask me why someone should care if you are misinterpreting Marx? Are you really so completely delusional?
You think that language, believe that communication, cannot be interpreted! Interpretation is the very essence of language itself! What are you talking about!?

I am speaking to not just a child - but a completely delusional child! One that lives in his fantasies and does not yet even understand what it means for something to be real. A child who seems to believe that his very thoughts, themselves, are truth.
So I hope the reader keeps this in mind as I ignore the rest of this nonsense and get back to actual content, to real discussion and not just meaningless bickering.

Readers: Start reading here to skip the bickering and the proof that Rafiq is an unreasonable person and a troll.



This is not what "I" believe, this is literally, explicitly stated by Marx. "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." Now naswer me directly: Does this fucking sound like someone who calls for the retention of religion? According to you, what Marx really meant here was that he was arguing for the emergence of a "true" religion - that for Marx, happiness actually meant replacing religion as it is today with a new one, or allowing it to flourish. How the FUCK does this make sense? What is even CLOSE To indicating this in any of Marx's texts?
I added quotes and italics to point out Marx's quotation, since you failed to do so. In any case, yes, it is indeed what you believe. Not even Lenin or Stalin believed what you do, and they did indeed try to abolish religion with violence in the Soviet Union.

In any case, I have already explained this. You're merely drawing yet another straw man. Marx, in this instance, was explaining that the abolition of Religion, which as I have explained is a concept derived from exploitative and oppressive social relationship, should be abolished. I'm sure you agree with this much, correct?
However, as I have explained to you already, Religion as Marx spoke of is different from Religion as a whole, as a complete Philosophical concept, as something which is not explicitly just the result of social-relationships but something individual to the people.

The part where you disagree is where I call this "religion" you call this something else. Marx himself did not explicitly indicate any such thing in his writings, I'm not stating this is explicitly what Marx meant when he spoke of abolishing religion - I really don't care and that isn't even relevant. What I'm explaining is that the concepts he spoke of were not to violently destroy Religion, as a philosophical concept, or even as a whole. Just as we do not violently deestroy the Bourgeois, as a whole. We destroy their class, the social relationship, and to do so we destroy the means of that social relationship. We do not go and murder all of their people.

You, on the other hand, have even argued that the USSR should have murdered every since clergy member. That you, fully believe, that Marx was speaking of, explicitly, murdering religious believers only because they believe in religion - not just to destroy the social-relationship, but to destroy religion itself.

That is completely idiotic. What Marx meant here was obviously not that the Revolution should murder every clergy member, but that Religion should be abolished exactly like as if it were Private Property. Your quote you try to use against me once again supports literally everything I have stated:

Originally Posted by Marx
The decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and citizen, religious man and citizen, is neither a deception directed against citizenhood, nor is it a circumvention of political emancipation, it is political emancipation itself, the political method of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Does this mean that some clergy member will be executed? Yes, certainly. Just as I have stated in the past - those clergy who step out of their place, the new place they are given as members of the bourgeois, the place of which is below the Proletariat, will be crushed. Those clergy who try to use their power against the Revolution, those whom act in the regards of being reactionary. Just as it would be against the bourgeois peoples whom are themselves acting reactionary. Not all bourgeois peoples would be executed - it is only an insane madman who would argue revolution, ANY revolution, would ever need to be so violent - so genocidal.

You, Rafiq, are that madman.
You argue that religion should be destroyed, not only in regards to it being a reactionary element, as a vehicle for the bourgeoisie, but that it should be excepted from society, because it is in itself an exception, and that it will not dissolve on its own due to the changes in class society, in the destruction of class society itself, but that it must be made an exception so that it can be completely destroyed, entirely, and without even the smallest thought of mercy for the people.

Is this really who you want to be? Is this really the only way you can see things playing out?
As I've explained, I don't think you can really get anyone, who is not also biased as yourself, to support this sort of insanity. Surely the movement itself does not garner much support, but I'm speaking of even gaining the support of revolutionaries themselves. Your beliefs are too extreme even for the extremists. That is how crazy and honestly how stupid they are.

Now back to the concept I spoke of, of "true religion", and what it means in regards to Marx.
As I have explained, I was never attempting to put words into Marx's mouth. I do not know exactly what he believed and I would not try to suggest I do, unlike you. I can only read what he wrote and interpret it, as can anyone else. And as such, we see that while Marx rejected religion and held rejection of religion as a sort of catalyst to revolutionary thought, he also looked at it in other ways, as I have explained, like when he stated it was the "heart of a heartless world". This isn't to mean he necessarily believed that there would be elements of it remaining in post-revolutionary, Communist society. He may or may not have believed that - it is in fact irrelevant what he actually believed.

What is important, however, is understanding Marx's Philosophy, not his believes but the way he formed his beliefs (as that is what Philosophies are). In this way, we do see that the way he explained religion was pretty much always in historical context, the social-relationship. Does this mean that is all he knew it as, or believed there would ever be for it? No, not at all. Again that is irrelevant. What is the point in talking about what he believed in regards to things he didn't explicitly address? More importantly, what we can see is that when he stated things such as religion is the 'soul of soulless conditions'. In such regards, this form of Religion, as he spoke of it, necessarily disappears wherein the conditions are no longer soulless. There can be no more "soul in soulless conditions" when the soulless conditions themselves disappear.
But, Marx was a Philosopher, he was also very careful with his words. So what then is left when "the soul of soulless conditions" are abolished? He did not explicitly state that a new form of religion would be left, in fact the way he explained it he would suggest that religion would not be remaining. However, it is very important to note that he compared the abolishment of religion to the abolishment of private property numerous times.
And he DOES in fact talk, elsewhere, about what remains once private property is abolished. So let's look at the Communist Manifesto:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Here Marx not only indicates that "Hard-won, self-acquired, and self-earned property" is not going to be abolished, but not only that current society is destroying this very thing.

So, if we keep the comparison here, what remains after the abolition of Religion will be hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned religion property of the religious-developer and of the common religious-worker. Something of which society itself is currently destroying.
Of course, this is perhaps too literal and there is not necessarily a need to continue the comparison. But again, Marx was a trained Philosopher, and was very careful with his words, so let's assume for a moment that the comparisons remained true. So what would this mean?
It would mean, very specifically, the "self-acquired" nature of the very root of religious-belief. Modern Religion being a reflection of society, the cumulative of society's history and sense of self, Private Property essentially being a reflection of the social and political power, the means of producing things of value. And to abolish private property we are making the means of production, the very means of producing things of value, publicly available, owned by the public. In doing so we eliminate the reflection of social and political power, we abolish private property, and put this power into the hands of the people.
So therefore, to continue the analogy, to abolish religion would mean to make religion into something which allows society to hold itself and produce value from itself. To abolish religion means to turn society's history and sense of self into something that is publicly held, something of which value can be contrived.

In other words: When we destroy the 'soul of soulless conditions', we are thereby destroying the soulless conditions themselves, and therefore producing something of which is truly only 'soul', we are producing Communism.

So why did Marx never speak of this in context of religion? Because he didn't have to. Maybe didn't even want to. He didn't really have to explain that personal possessions were still people's personal property once we abolish private property. He only made note of this because private property and personal property are linguistically confusing. Likewise, he only noted that the result of abolishing religion would be, in itself, Communism. That is all he needed to do. This is because Communism, in itself, is the fruition of developing society, the means of which takes the power of creating things of value and gives it to all people.

Marx was also a materialist, but religion does not deal in materialism, and therefore to even speak of society creating things of value from within itself, in a materialistic sense, is itself society simply doing what it does - creating things of material value from within its own creativity, the very creativity of humanity.

Don't you get it, Rafiq?
I am not putting any words into Marx's mouth. I am not stating that the Religion of yesterday or the Religion of today will exist inside Communism. That is absolutely nothing but a straw man - the failed comprehension of a Philosophical concept I am speaking of.

I am not talking about modern Religion being saved within Communism - NO! I am speaking of Religion being renewed, reborn. That of which is the very spirit of society becoming something in which society holds, understands, and embraces.

To paraphrase the words of Marx, 'Man will recognize the essence of Man'! That is the very "Religion" I am speaking of!
Marx did not, technically, address it in the way I do because he never had any need to! But it is the very same thing, I just speak of it in a different way.

Want evidence? Refer to all of my previous posts. I have quoted Marx numerous times already supporting everything I have said. I could pull tons more from practically any Marxist text dealing with religion, as well, but ultimately one should be able to successfully interpret things on their own, especially given this insight. Proof will be found throughout his writings. Though I could also recommend an understanding of Philosophy, especially those developed prior to Marx. This would help associating what I have explained here to the things Marx spoke of. Philosophy, especially as Marx understood it, is incredibly important to understanding of Marxism.

So what does this have to do with the brutal revolution and denying violence against religious people? Well that problem is twofold.

First off, very little.
I argue this only because you are insane and the point was brought up in the conversation - you are driven by the thought of violence due to your personal bias of religion, due to the very fact that you do not deny religion, but the fact that you are personally very religious. That you are holding on to an ideology that is part of current-society, something you have yet to let go of or even understand why there is a need to let go of it. You are a religious believer of some kind of 'brutal-Atheism', a cult of violence against all other religions! It is insanity in the violent aspect, and reactionary in the aspect that it is in itself causing you to overlook the true nature of Communist revolution, that the revolution is not intended to destroy people, but to destroy concepts. You are, therefore, reactionary to the Capitalist ideology that wishes to destroy people whom disagree. The very root of the political bourgeois's oppressive force. The very ideology that allows them to deny peaceful Communist revolution and requires it to be violent. And in doing so, you would willingly give up not just peaceful solutions, but you will willingly give up the revolution itself in order to create a bourgeois-controlled society of your own design! That is, inevitably, your Religion.
Call me reactionary as much as you want, but inevitably your own ideology is really what is of a conflict with Marxism here. Why not just openly hand the revolution over to the violent exclusive dictators? Why not just openly give the revolution back to the bourgeoisie? You might as well, it's essentially the same thing. If this weren't in the context of Communist discussion I'd honestly think you were talking about Neo-Nazism, except minus the racism and going even further with the antisemitism to include all religious groups.
As I stated in my opening reply to you on this topic: "These implications being the misguided ignorance of revolutionaries who truly want Atheism to preside over the new Communist government, over the Dictatorship. These implications are arguments made like those of hem day, above. Some sort of meta-religious-rule of a new type of pseudo-Proletariat. It is strangely reminiscent of a cult. It is surely not Communism, and certainly not a true Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

Second, it is vaguely related because if we were to follow ideologies like yours, to be completely violent in the revolution, with extreme force and violence against all ideologies that do not explicitly follow Communist-thought. If we are to behave in such a way, as revolutionaries, within the revolution, the result would be mindless. The resulting society, if it did not fall apart due to reactionary opposition (which it likely would), would become something which was not at all Communism - something which would be something absurd, eventually once again ruled by a ruling class elite, something which few people have power - and they have absolute power, and of which society in itself has little creativity left within it. Creativity itself, the very nature of the essence of humanity, would be oppressed by this chaos, by this violence. How in the world could society possibly become Communism if it is so stuck on violently oppressing ideologies that are not completely consistent with a one-sided view of the world?
I'm not talking about abolishing or opposing reactionaries, or countering ideologies which do oppose Communism, but to violently oppress the people so as they fear the government itself, and therefore cannot become the government itself.

You would do this? To what end? You might suggest it would simply be violence towards the clergy, towards the bourgeois, but in what history, in what world do you live in, where political orders are carried out perfectly? Where clear and absolute violence against one group, a genocide, does not bleed out into the world among other groups?

In what delusional fantasies do you live in, Rafiq?

You want to speak of Religion? Of Communism?
Well then first deal with your demons, your very real demons, because they seem to pollute every aspect of your thought.

Now, if this post does not clarify all of the ridiculousness then I doubt anything ever could.
I have provided clear explanations, disregarding all straw men arguments and other nonsense and meanwhile hopefully dispelled the ridiculous belief in absolute violence. Although I admit I probably should have went into that more, but I assume that everyone in their right mind can understand why extreme violence, even in revolution, is unproductive and generally stupid. We are not trying to create a second Nazi-Germany. That is honestly all I should ever have to say on that topic.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have no problem with people who hold religious views, and though I disagree with 'belief' in any form (be that believe in god, or believing that there is no god), I don't have a problem with the existence of personal religion.

Where religion is tied to power structures is in its institutions. Religious institutions such as the Church have held power across social systems - they were the dominant social power during the feudal period and as such tend to hold very conservative social positions today, because religious institutions tend not to benefit from progressive ideas and philosophies.

[Rafiq]

I can't fucking believe what I'm reading. Why is Subversive allowed to shrink the overall content of my arguments like this? Why do I put in incredible effort, care and time into thoroughly addressing all of his fucking claims only to be met with such dismissive ignorance? Why the FUCK is he allowed to retain a semblance of argumentative dignity while being so shameless as to LITERALLY give us a not even a quarter of a response to my overall arguments?



Of the post I was replying to last, you had a whole of two quotations in quote boxes, both regarding something that was a complete straw man. The other quotes you provided, outside of quote boxes, were nothing but quotes being repeated after I'd already gave them to you.

The reason I barely provided external quotes, was because I had to explicitly demonstrate how the quotations you provided did not support your argument. Had I supplied external quotes, you could have said: "Well, maybe, but clearly here Marx is saying this!" You don't know how a fucking argument works. The fact that I was able to knock down every nonsensical claim, and conclusion derived from the "evidence" you provided proves that your evidence is insufficient (without your "personal interpretation) in supporting your conclusion in itself! So you're a fucking hypocrite when you dismiss the whole of my arguments on grounds that "It's just claims with no evidence to back it up" - you don't have ANY fucking evidence to back ANYTHING you've said up by the SAME qualifications! The fact of the matter is that we've been over this, I have already demonstrated how your relativist trash, how your postmodern garbage falls flat on its fucking face upon inception:

We've been over this: Relativism fails its own qualifications to validity by positing an absolute truth, which is in itself inherently wrong. The point is that merely perceiving the history of religion in a relativist manner leaves no room for relativism, because this itself then becomes "relative" to the subject perceiving its history. It is a form of circular reasoning which disallows any understanding of reality.


I don't have to fucking read thoughts, it's self evident from your posts. And it doesn't matter if I'm perfect or not, that's utterly meaningless - unless you can demonstrate HOW I am wrong, as far as this discussion is concerned yes I am fucking 100% right. You might privately infer that I should be wrong at least one or two points, but you can't actualize this into an actual argument because it's meaningless - you can lean toward an orientation of thinking something, but to actually profess a stance in an argument means you have to back it the fuck up. I don't care about being open minded - I told you this before, there's a difference between thinking openly with your mind, and thinking openly with your ass - I don't have to give credence to your claims simply by merit of it being "another perspective". Because NONE OF THIS is contingent on our unique experiences, REASON is external, through WHICH we articulate - it is out there, on the table for all - objective truth is objectively possible by merit of our objective social complexity. We've been over this before, but you keep on with your garbage and muddied relativism.


And now you'll go on claiming you had nothing to do with relativism, because you didn't explicitly say "I am a relativist". You're such a child and it's just fucking obnoxious at this point: It doesn't matter if these are my "personal interpretations", I didn't know Marx, so there is clearly a complex theoretical substrate which allows me to come to the conclusions that I do beyond my own immediate subjective experiences. So instead of addressing that, you simply disqualify yourself from having to engage me in any meaningful sense, because they're just "my" claims which I'm not backing up with evidence. But WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE are you looking for? Marx and Engels DID NOT engage in this debate because they didn't go on Revleft to see you blasphemize their work. The only conclusion you could possibly come to is that we're free to interpret them and conform their works to whatever twisted pretenses to belief we want, since everything they did not explicitly address is "up for interpretation". But they DID address the issue of religion, and they made absolutely no room for any qualified understanding of it on your terms - they did not say "religion only in this manner" - they said RELIGION AS SUCH. Unless in that century there is something "new" about religion which we discovered, whereby it takes a completely different property that Marx and Engels weren't able to fathom, you can shut the fuck up and stop talking about wider "religion" in its 'philosophic outlook' being different from religion as referred to by Marx and Engels. Do you even UNDERSTAND logic? Your notion of religion is a muddied abstraction which you have failed to defend. You make claims to the impossible, saying "It's deeper than you think!" without providing an iota of a clue of what that could possibly fucking mean. I tried to make guesses, none of which were addressed:

he truth is that religion is not so complex at all in actuality, so much so to the point where even the philosophic, ethical, and logical components of a religion which can be analyzed from religion are only possible from an atheistic standpoint. Because religion's power precisely resides in ignorance of its own soul and constitution, otherwise, it is presented along with the multitude of other possible beliefs! And it is clear: There is a dissonance between the 'theoretical' canon of a religion and the power of a religion in society, among people. There is a difference between understanding and tolerating a religion. And do you not know? All of history has been the utter destruction of ancient forms of thought, of traditions carried on with unfathomable divine power vested in them. With each historic epoch these are wiped clean as though they never exist, and we are better off without them. With a god's eye view, what horrors one would dwell upon in seeing how in a few years deep-seated traditions which have lasted millenia in the East are simply broken down and disintegrated, from China to India. And anything which may pass through the crucible of the event firmly loses its form and retains only its content. This stems not from ignorance, for the real ignorance is the ignorance of the affirmative power of Communism, which triumphs sublimely over the sum-total of all religions in all historic epochs, vests in itself what legacy from them is worth entering through the inferno. Lenin said that only when one enriches themselves with the treasures of all of mankind can one be a Communist, he was right. The mere perception of the history of religion can be traced to a unitary gaze which codifies them all. Relativism is not only wrong, it is a lie in itself.


So how FUCKING dare you be so dismissive without even being able to propose a single argument which by your own qualifications can be confronted. You literally want me to TOLERATE your blasphemous "interpretations" because you have the "right" to think whatever the fuck you want regarding them. Here's the difference: You can WANT to think whatever you want - but you do NOT have the right to make things up, or to designate truth for us all because of your "individual" preferences.


1. The decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and citizen, religious man and citizen, is neither a deception directed against citizenhood, nor is it a circumvention of political emancipation, it is political emancipation itself, the political method of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace.

2. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.

3. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

4. The political constitution was until now the religious sphere, the religion of popular life, the heaven of its universality in opposition to the earthly existence of its actuality

5. Everyone should be able to attend his religious as well as his bodily needs without the police sticking their noses in. But the Workers' party ought, at any rate in this connection, to have expressed its awareness of the fact that bourgeois "freedom of conscience" is nothing but the toleration of all possible kinds of religious freedom of conscience, and that for its part it endeavors rather to liberate the conscience from the witchery of religion

6. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.

7. Fortunately it is easy enough to be an atheist today. Atheism is so near to being self-obvious with European working-class parties nowadays — although in certain countries it is often enough like that of the Spanish Bakuninist who maintained that it was against all socialism to believe in God but that the Virgin Mary was a different matter, every decent socialist ought naturally to believe in her. It can even be said of the German Social-Democratic workers that atheism has already outlived itself with them: this purely negative word no longer has any application as far as they are concerned inasmuch as their opposition to faith in God is no longer one of theory but one of practice; they have purely and simply finished with God, they live and think in the world of reality and are therefore materialists

8. In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.


You dare call me a fucking liar when none of these eight quotes which I explicitly used as proof were NEVER fucking used by you at all? In fact, there are only a FEW quotes which I used that you may have as well - with the overall point being to demonstrate how the linguistic structure of them completely contradicted your nonsensical claims. What the FUCK do you have to say for yourself? Again, you prattle of "personal interpretations" but you haven't given us an iota of a means of demonstrating that this is just "my" personal interpretation - you haven't done shit except say it is, without backing it up in any meaningful sense. Your dishonesty is appalling - did you even READ my fucking post? there is no other explanation for this - you're either a troll, or you're so dishonest as to have to make shit up in order to cope with what is obviously to any sensible person a defeat. None of my points or arguments have to be addressed because apparently, they're my "personal" interpretations. But you're GUILTY of the same thing based on your own qualificaitons for what is just a "claim" and what is truth you FUCKING idiot! I already called you out on this, and do you know what you fucking said?


On the contrary, I believe I've quoted Marx more than you have, if not just as much. And I'm pretty sure I've quoted more sources and from more pages, as well. I wanted to point out that I'm addressing a higher understanding of Marx, rather than just stripping away context to quote-mine, as you seem to try to do.


And clearly, I've provided numerous quotations too from various sections of Marx's work. The difference is that these are "my" personal interpretations, and Subversive demonstrates this by claiming I haven't provided quotations to back them up. Well what the FUCK does he want? Does he literally want a direct quote from Marx, who never could be so stupid as to even bother with Subversive's wild fucking claims, saying "Subversive is completely and utterly full of shit"? Keep in mind that I made it my prerogative to put off external interpretations (which would have further supported my argument) and have completely relied on direct quotes from them. This again is me granting your your own qualifications to validity - that "more quotes" means better, and so on. Even though this is entirely wrong, infantile and nonsensical - even if they're my personal interpretations, the point of an argument is to demonstrate whether those interpretations coincide with the actual content being interpreted well. Have you done this? No, you haven't. Instead, you've dismissed ALL of my major and cohesive points as "baseless claims" because I didn't provide you with direct quotations which support the elaborations of those claims. But the elaborations THEMSELVES stem from YOUR relentless strive to reconcile Marx and Engel's works with your religious sentiments - so why the FUCK would they have said anything about them when it wasn't even an argument brought before them? I have pointed out how we can logically infer how they would respond. Eventually, you yourself had to fucking admit your utter disregard for the initial meaning of Marx's works, which is why you later said:

In fact, honestly, who really cares what he MAY or MAY NOT have meant? Why bother with interpretation of things he obviously left vague? If he wanted it clarified I'm sure he would have clarified it. It does not really matter that much.


So clearly, you don't give a fuck about what he meant. The fact of the matter is that what he meant was loud and clear. YOU have misconstrued the meaning, and then told us that it stands because Marx and Engels didn't address this misconstruction. The fact is that they were explicitly anti-religious - but if Subversive wants to make up a new defintiion of what constitutes religion, which apparently Marx and Engels were too stupid to come into terms with, how the FUCK can I provide evidence from Marx and Engels explicitly addressing this, when the whole thing is built on stupid fucking foundations to begin with? There is no "wider" philosophical truth of religion, as a matter of fact since the 18th century religion ceased to have any iota of philosophical worth. The power of religion is NOT sustained by "philosophy" but by its social power. . You didn't even fucking read any of the points and arguments leveled at you because Rafiq typed them. If Marx and Engels had this attitude, they would have never been able to write anything, because their works were 'personal' interpretations of Hegel. The point is cliche'd and simple: Subversive sees Marx and Engels as external symbolic figures which signify authority and legitimacy, without critically evaluating, with Reason, the overall content of their posts. That there is something ABOUT Marx and Engels which makes them qualified to say what they are, is what makes them powerful to Subversive - NOT what they are explicitly saying.


So then, I noticed in the most recent post you started to quote more, as if the most recent post would somehow counter-act the lack of evidence in your previous posts


Yes, because the point is that you CHALLENGED me in providing evidence to support my claims, you made it as though I was being completely in-contextual, completely ridiculous with "bold" claims. I didn't think someone who makes such grand pretension to Marx and Engels would be completely ignorant of what I had referred to, but you proved me wrong. So I provided you with new quotations to demonstrate this. And what do you have to say for yourself? That you're now exempt from approaching them because they're my "personal" interpretations... What the FUCK am I dealing with here, an ACTUAL child?


No, what I "brushed over" were numerous straw men that had literally nothing to do with my claims.


Except you haven't even come CLOSE to demonstrating that these were 'Straw men" which had "literally nothing to do with your claims". And if you can't demonstrate they're straw man - you shut the fuck up because no one should be expected to take your word for it. Clearly it is NOT a given that these are "straw men". Saying so is an argument, and you need ot back up that argument. But again, you've done this several times before in our past encounters - you make outrageous claims which I thoroughly destroy, and apparently the intensity of this defeat leads you to disassociate yourself with my attacks on you because you look and say "Well, I wouldn't consciously say that or agree with that". That's MEANINGLESS! I point out the LOGICAL CONCLUSION of your posts, and what do you say? "I don't agree with that". Well here's a fucking tip - NO SHIT you don't CONSCIOUSLY want to identify with what can only be evidence of your UTTER inconsistencies and drivel, it's CHILDISH, cowardly and DISHONEST to simply distance yourself away from what is a cohesive argument against your points. In Subversive's mind, our ideas and the implications of those ideas can be CHOSEN. We can "Choose" what we believe, in his mind. Therefore, if he does not directly say something himself, no qualified judgement can be made of the implications of what he sais, because all that Subversive doesn't want, or chooses not to identify with, can't actually be constitutive of his ideological presumptions. It is akin to a gremlin who thinks he looks like prince charming cry out in contempt that others, in fact, tell him he is a gremlin. That's not a "straw man", that's pointing something out which the directed subject was unable to themselves recognize. But alas, no one expects Subversive NOT to defend himself - the point is that you need to demonstrate how exactly this is a straw man, and thoroughly recognize why the straw man was made in the first place and attack that. You have done NONE of those things, instead, you treat my words as mere free floating abstractions which can be opposed or accepted based on preference. But these are not "my" ideas and this isn't "my" language, it is available to ANY rational man to decipher whether I am full of shit or not. Being dismissive, forming over-reaching conclusions based on holistic judgement of PERSONALITY or legitimacy, reveals that Subversive is an intellectual dwarf who can't back up his bullshit with anything more than exercising his false right to conceit. What I said had everything to do with your fucking claims, the fact that I don't have to accept your terms for truth, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with your pretenses to truth. If I tell a Christian, and explain to them the psychological pathology behind their beliefs, they will say it has "nothing" to do with their arguments about the validity of the bible or the fact that "Christ is with us", because being ignorant of the origin and functioning of his beliefs is a condition of actually consciously holding those beliefs.


you have yet to refute anything I have addressed without simply making yet another claim.


And what's the problem with this? Do you KNOW how an argument fucking works? If you make a new claim yourself, if you "address" something which is new, thereby making an ew argument,t how the FUCK can I not make a new claim to contract your new act of addressing? Subversive, the child, stomps on the ground and cries out: "DUR, I ALREADY SED WORDS! NOW U MAKE NEW WORDS ON MY WORDS? NO FAIR!" - you want my argument to remain static and crystallized. Now had what I said been INCONSISTENT with my previous claim then you would have had EVERY right to point out that my "new" claim was erroneous and should not have been made. But since it is an ELABORATION of a previous argument, you don't have the fucking right to do this!


I have demonstrated your interpretations to be biased and delusional, as well as contradictory to Marx's own writings. So who cares? Everyone should. Everyone should care about the truth.


While making such grand claims to the truth, pay attention to how UTTERLY ironic this is:
Who cares if they're "my" interpretations, even if they were? That doesn't mean anything! You have failed to address such interpretations at all beyond making pretenses to subjectivity - and here's a fucking newsflash, Subversive - if mine are "just my interpretations" then who the fuck are you to even talk about Marx's quotes, considering that these are just as equally "your" interpretations too? What a spineless hypocrite you are. Do you actually think like a fucking child? Are you so intellectually bankrupt that you gloss over thoroughly made and detailed arguments as "nothing" because they aren't all "backed up" by citations? Again, this is anti-intellectualism at it's fucking finest - where are Marx's citations in his very polemics? Do you even know how an argument works? The fact of the matter is that it's clear you haven't a semblance of an understand of Marx. I have demonstrated every source you have used as literally contradicting you, or at the very best not even coming close to supporting the conclusions you've drawn from them.

Keep in mind, I said this in the last page. Isn't this absolutely fucking hilarious? I literally call him out on being unable to come close to addressing my "personal" interpretations, which are apparently "not" the truth because Subversive is an omnipotent, trans-human god who is beyond "bias" aside from making pretenses to subjectivity as an actual argument for its validity - and what does he do? He claims that my posts are "biased" - doing EXACTLY that. The fact of the matter is that, under you OWN qualifications, how the FUCK are you not biased yourself, Subversive? How?


Yet you ask me why someone should care if you are misinterpreting Marx? Are you really so completely delusional?


No you FUCKING idiot, I asked you why ANYONE should care if what I say is "biased" or a "personal interpreation" considering it's pretty FUCKING impossible for it NOT to be a "personal interpreations" under your own criteria for it. What is in fact NOT a personal interpreation, Subverisve? How do you distinguish a "personal" interpretation from a non personal interpretation? And have you succeeded in doing this while confronting my posts? NO!


That is completely idiotic. What Marx meant here was obviously not that the Revolution should murder every clergy member, but that Religion should be abolished exactly like as if it were Private Property. Your quote you try to use against me once again supports literally everything I have stated:


Isn't it ironic that SUBVERSIVE attempts to claim that I create "straw men" when this is PRECISELY what he is doing? I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY A WORD ABOUT WHETHER MARX WANTED TO MURDER THE CLERGY, I WAS EXPLICITLY REFERRING TO YOUR CLAIM THAT: you seem to believe that he wanted religion to be rejected entirely.I responded with: This is not what "I" believe, this is literally, explicitly stated by Marx.Why the FUCK do you lie? In THIS context, I wasn't saying that "Marx explicitly said all of the clergy should be shot and killed". I have made no claims about what Marx, on a tactical level, thought the proletarian dictatorship should do with the clergy. Even though we could have inferred very clearly that this is what he expected:

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm

REGARDLESS of what Marx would have thought should be done with the clergy following an immediate, post-revolutionary situation, this was NOT the context from which I claimed Marx explicitly stated he rejected religion in its entirety. Unless rejecting religion in its entirety is synonymous with executing the clergy, who knows - in that case, Marx did want to execute the clergy BECAUSE he completely rejected religion in its entirety. Because if A = B, then also B = A. But in any case, let us analyze the linguistic structure of the above quotation: the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property. Now let's use FUCKING logic - Marx is not saying religion and private property were synonymous (I can't FUCKING believe the shit you say, my god), he was saying that IF the state is going to abolish religion, it has to first in the same way (the same way being the act of abolition itself, not the "quality" of this abolition) private property is also abolished. This is NOT a personal interpretation, it is vested in the grammatical structure of the sentence itself. Marx was saying that the abolition of private property is a pre-requisite to the abolition of religion, he was NOT saying that religion should be "abolished exactly like private property" (With Subversive's conclusion being that "religion" will be owned in common just like private property is, or where "true" religion can emerge). And this is consistent with the WHOLE of Marx - is it a "coincidence" in your mind that Marx said that the demand to abolish illusions is a demand to abolish the conditions which require illusions? Is that a fucking coincidence in your mind? So much AD HOC, so much violations of OCCAM'S RAZOR with the only identifiable thread in common: a relentless means to reconcile "true religion" with Marx, even if it's not fucking consistent, and even if it requires so much further elaborations, extra-qualifications, and dingle berry dried shit hanging meta-beliefs. That Marx does not directly make an attempt to destroy or challenge "your" definition of religion, which is different becomes it encompasses the "wider" philosophic complexity of religion, is not evidence that he contradicts you, because the internal mechanisms which make pretenses to such haughty abstractions of "wider" philosophic complexity of religion are INHERENTLY idealist, divorcing religion as such from the conditions of which religion is derived - class society. Instead of making honest deductions based on what is OBVIOUS, you like any other religious scumbag take advantage of the gaps - "Well Marx DIDN'T not say this..." - the point is simple, WHY WOULD HE? There is no room in the historic tradition of Marxism, or Marx's own theoretical foundations himself, for making special qualifications to religion as being "alienated" from true religion. Feuerbach attempted to construct a "religion of humanity" which was further incorporated into the god-building of the Bolsheviks, which both Marx and Engels vehemently denounced. Even then, Feuerbach's religion of humanity was fervently atheistic, in that it opposed projecting humanity's potentials to the heavens and instead posed the necessity of a religion which entailed the collective worship of all of humanity's achievements. EVEN THIS was rejected by Marx, because religion as such was in itself a form of alienation. You want some fucking evidence? Here's what Engels said on the matter in his criticism of him - don't you DARE fucking ignore this:


The real idealism of Feuerbach becomes evident as soon as we come to his philosophy of religion and ethics. He by no means wishes to abolish religion; he wants to perfect it. Philosophy itself must be absorbed in religion.

“The periods of humanity are distinguished only by religious changes. A historical movement is fundamental only when it is rooted in the hearts of men. The heart is not a form of religion, so that the latter should exist also in the heart; the heart is the essence of religion.” (Quoted by Starcke, p.168.)

According to Feuerbach, religion is the relation between human beings based on the affections, the relation based on the heart, which relation until now has sought its truth in a fantastic mirror image of reality — in the mediation of one or many gods, the fantastic mirror images of human qualities — but now finds it directly and without any mediation in the love between “I” and “Thou”. Thus, finally, with Feuerbach sex love becomes one of the highest forms, if not the highest form, of the practice of his new religion.

Now relations between human beings, based on affection, and especially between the two sexes, have existed as long as mankind has. Sex love in particular has undergone a development and won a place during the last 800 years which has made it a compulsory pivotal point of all poetry during this period. The existing positive religions have limited themselves to the bestowal of a higher consecration upon state-regulated sex love — that is, upon the marriage laws — and they could all disappear tomorrow without changing in the slightest the practice of love and friendship. Thus the Christian religion in France, as a matter of fact, so completely disappeared in the year 1793–95 that even Napoleon could not re-introduce it without opposition and difficulty; and this without any need for a substitute in Feuerbach’s sense, making itself in the interval.

mply accept mutual relations based on reciprocal inclination between human beings, such as sex love, friendship, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc., as what they are in themselves — without associating them with any particular religion which to him, too, belongs to the past; but instead he asserts that they will attain their full value only when consecrated by the name of religion. The chief thing for him is not that these purely human relations exist, but that they shall be conceived of as the new, true, religion. They are to have full value only after they have been marked with a religious stamp. Religion is derived from religare [“to bind”] and meant, originally, a bond. Therefore, every bond between two people is a religion. Such etymological tricks are the last resort of idealist philosophy. Not what the word means according to the historical development of its actual use, but what it ought to mean according to its derivation is what counts. And so sex love, and the intercourse between the sexes, is apotheosized to a religion, merely in order that the word religion, which is so dear to idealistic memories, may not disappear from the language. The Parisian reformers of the Louis Blanc trend used to speak in precisely the same way in the forties. They, likewise, could conceive of a man without religion only as a monster, and used to say to us: “Donc, l’atheisme c’est votre religion!” [“Well, then atheism is your religion!”] If Feuerbach wishes to establish a true religion upon the basis of an essentially materialist conception of nature, that is the same as regarding modern chemistry as true alchemy. If religion can exist without its god, alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone. By the way, there exists a very close connection between alchemy and religion. The philosopher’s stone has many godlike properties and the Egyptian-Greek alchemists of the first two centuries of our era had a hand in the development of Christian doctrines, as the data given by Kopp and Bertholet have proved.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch03.htm

And before you, like the dishonest coward you are take advantage of a potential linguistic confusion, Engels wasn't saying "philosophy SHOULD" be absorbed into religion, he was saying explicitly, if you follow the fucking sentence, that according to Feuerbach it should as a means of perfecting it. Tell me Subversive, how do you go on with a shred of fucking dignity, with a shred of confidence in your wild and nonsensical ideas with the evidence provided above, I am literally CURIOUS as to how you're going to misconstrue this one as yet again another "personal interpretation". OK, Fuck it, ignore everything I've said - READ the quote, what CONCLUSION can ANYONE come to here by reading this? Now you'll say that Engels and Marx differed with regard to their stance on religion, of which there is no evidence for ANYWHERE.


You argue that religion should be destroyed, not only in regards to it being a reactionary element, as a vehicle for the bourgeoisie, but that it should be excepted from society, because it is in itself an exception, and that it will not dissolve on its own due to the changes in class society, in the destruction of class society itself, but that it must be made an exception so that it can be completely destroyed, entirely, and without even the smallest thought of mercy for the people.


No, that's now what I fucking said. I justified the attacks on the clergy by the Bolsheviks in the same way that I will go to my death defending the attacks on the clergy by the Jacobins during the French revolution, a legacy which enflames the hearts of every Communist, a legacy that every Communist would rather die holding on to as Perseus did the head of the gorgon than give up in the face of such pious sentimentality. In which case, in such neo-feudal societies religion was exceptional. In which case, even in our society, the established religions will irrevocably become dismantled even if they are not made illegal, considering that their existence relies, in the United States, upon the tax exemptions they receive and elsewhere the vast swaths of money donated to them. Without this, religion will die away even in the most superficial sense. Do I have a moral problem with blowing up churches, with the masses sticking the heads of clerics on spikes and dancing around the city? No! If I were to oppose this, had I been some all powerful god with the power to, it would be purely for tactical and strategic reasons. By merit of revolutionary justice, the clergy deserves no mercy.


As I've explained, I don't think you can really get anyone, who is not also biased as yourself, to support this sort of insanity. Surely the movement itself does not garner much support, but I'm speaking of even gaining the support of revolutionaries themselves. Your beliefs are too extreme even for the extremists. That is how crazy and honestly how stupid they are.


Yes, and who the fuck designates the middle ground? Who does this, Subversive? What If I'M moderate and YOU'RE extreme? Again, you DON'T fucking understand logic. And I'm flattered with your accusations of insanity. The hatred in my heart for the religious will not even come close to the hatred for the clergy that will brew in the hearts of the working people once they are shown with a shred of evidence of the lies and ignorance it perpetuates. Such has been HISTORY itself - do you think all of the anti-clerical sentiment was purely intellectual in the Soviet Union? The League of Militant Atheists was a VOLUNTARY organization composed not of state-agents but volunteers who received support from the state! Eventually it had 3.5 million members, considering that the industrial proletarian demographic wasn't nearly that big, I'd say it's not fucking "too unreasonable" for humans to grasp at all. Be honest - you don't give a flying fuck about external support you coward, it's YOUR support, YOUR faith and confidence in the revolution which is being questioned here. Do I care to win Subversive over? No, Subversive is a reactionary scoundrel whom I would rather have stop pretending to be a Communist any day over the effort it would take to convince him how full of shit he is.


he also looked at it in other ways, as I have explained, like when he stated it was the "heart of a heartless world".


That's NOT looking at it in other ways you dolt, this was completely consistent with Marx's anti-religious sentiments. The point is to strive for a world which is NOT heartless, that was the point. Notice how heart of a heartless world, on your terms, is a CONTRADICTION - a heartless world cannot have a heart by merit of it being heartless. The ONLY interpretation one can draw is that Marx casts religion as being contingent, as its heart, of the heartless world. Religion is necessary to sustain this heartless world, THAT was the point.


Here Marx not only indicates that "Hard-won, self-acquired, and self-earned property" is not going to be abolished, but not only that current society is destroying this very thing.


This is the epitome of fucking ridiculous, and it stems from the error that Marx was attempting to make it as though the abolition of religion would be "like" the abolition of private property, rather than the latter being a pre-requisite to the former. Try again. You're literally trying to make religion an allegory for private property rather than its other-wordly legitimization and it's beyond fucking pathetic. Just admit you're wrong and move the fuck on if you want to retain a shred of dignity, Subversive. My god.


Don't you get it, Rafiq?
I am not putting any words into Marx's mouth. I am not stating that the Religion of yesterday or the Religion of today will exist inside Communism. That is absolutely nothing but a straw man - the failed comprehension of a Philosophical concept I am speaking of.


That's exactly what you're doing, you're drawing false conclusions from false interpretations of Marx's works. You're blasphemizing him and then drawing conclusions from that - how the FUCK is this not shoving words down his mouth? My qualm isn't that you think "exploitative" religion will cease to exist, my qualm is that you MAKE THE VERY DISTINCTION between religion as it EXISTS and the "philosophical" complexity of "true" religion. Attempting to divorce religion from that which is contingent upon religion is a game of knit-picking, it's dishonest and it's ridiculous!


Want evidence? Refer to all of my previous posts. I have quoted Marx numerous times already supporting everything I have said. I could pull tons more from practically any Marxist text dealing with religion,


Then do it. I call your bluff, give us an example of "any" Marxist text with regard to religion and tell us how it supports the conclusions that Marx said abolishing religion was the SAME as abolishing private property and completely analogous to it, that Marx left room for a "true" religion to develop and flourish "free" from the corruption of capitalism (And literally, every ultra-nationalist Russian Orthodox reactionary will agree with precisely that). Do it, give us the fucking quotes.


You are a religious believer of some kind of 'brutal-Atheism', a cult of violence against all other religions!


This doesn't bother me to the slightest. Let it be known that I'm a religious fundamentalist then, that all other gods are false and the gods of Communism are true, let Communism be the hun-like Islam which swept aside the pagan idols of Arabia in service of a new god of revolutionary justice, of vengeance and of terror, let Communism sweep aside the false idols of bourgeois society in service of OUR new god, the god who is a good comrade as to be convinced that he himself does not exist. I have no problem with this 'brutal-atheism', I very much find it flattering, ignoring the fact that it rests on an idiotic, flimsy and vague understanding of religion.


eventually once again ruled by a ruling class elite, something which few people have power - and they have absolute power, and of which society in itself has little creativity left within it. Creativity itself, the very nature of the essence of humanity, would be oppressed by this chaos, by this violence. How in the world could society possibly become Communism if it is so stuck on violently oppressing ideologies that are not completely consistent with a one-sided view of the world?


Oh how cute - you're a liberal after all. Even if what you described actually happened and could happen within our conditions, this would still be Communism and not a class society, class society is contingent on the existence of private property - without it, there can be no classes. using your imagination, if there's a caste of 'brutal-atheists' which rules over society, this doesn't mean anything. It's fucking hilarious that you talk about creativity when the only instances of religious creativity have been the last three decades or so, with the emergence of backwoods cults and reactionary, degenerate and postmodern religious sentiments. You rely on the false presumption, as I have POINTED OUT BEFORE, that ideology doesn't fucking come from "creativity" but from class society. There would be no need to "oppress" ideology of the systemic conditions from which ideology emerges are done away with. There cannot be the forceful imposition of a "one-sided view" of the world when another "side" isn't even possible. Again, the 20th century experience tells us that all ideological difference is contingent upon social antagonism. Mere disagreements about things is not the source of ideological difference, the point is what those "things" are, where they derive their power, and why they can exist in reality. If you actually fucking think Catholicism arose because it was a "different view of things" which emerged for no reason, you have no right to even talk about religion. Bourgeois society has already dealt the second to last blow to the power of religion, all that sustains it today are its (capital's) degenerate tendencies, vested in which a new dark age approaches. From the proletarian dictatorship, one could expect that in the Near Eat a violent campaign against the religious establishment would have to be delt. This is, after all only a fantasy - we don't have a movement, so no one pretends to know what the fuck will happen. the point is that religion as such is incompatible with Marxism, and that Communism is inherently atheist in practice. End of fucking story.


We are not trying to create a second Nazi-Germany.

That's hilarious, it almost sounds like you're saying Nazi Germany arose in its particular historic form, in the circumstances it did, because "People wanted to impose their ideas on others". Every society "imposes" its ideas just as brutally, and just as mercilessly as Nazi Germany does. The difference is that in Germany, people knew which ideas were being imposed on them.

Or, you could skip all that, and call the whole thing my subjective personal interpretation. In that case, have a nice fucking day and don't bother trying to get your last word in like the child you are.

[Subversive]

This doesn't bother me to the slightest. Let it be known that I'm a religious fundamentalist then, that all other gods are false and the gods of Communism are true, let Communism be the hun-like Islam which swept aside the pagan idols of Arabia in service of a new god of revolutionary justice, of vengeance and of terror, let Communism sweep aside the false idols of bourgeois society in service of OUR new god, the god who is a good comrade as to be convinced that he himself does not exist. I have no problem with this 'brutal-atheism', I very much find it flattering, ignoring the fact that it rests on an idiotic, flimsy and vague understanding of religion.
There you have it, folks.
Rafiq demonstrates everything I've said about him is true, with only a small qualifier. For Rafiq, who makes it his 'thing' to try to make a point when he wants to make a point, this qualifier is basically nothing. He essentially openly admits this is entirely true.
It summarizes his bias. The one I explained is clouding his judgment and his arguments, entirely. He fails to see the point I make, using only straw men to argue incessantly, because he is unable to realize the fault of this.

I think I'm done here. I've proven every point I set out to prove. People who still don't understand it are obviously not even attempting to understand it. And anyone falling for Rafiq's nonsense and linguistic tricks, the foolish belief that making text larger and larger, or simply just repeating it, as time goes on somehow also makes it more true, are just as hopeless as him. Passion for a point obviously does not make a point true - the failed mistake of ALL zealous religious believers, like Rafiq.
Nothing I can do will bring those people back from that sort of ignorance. I tried.

[Vogel]

Honestly, innocently, I just want to know how Rafiq finds the time to type all he does.


Just to end the matter of Religion and the RevLeft, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKK7tKtBeRc&t=2732.

Also, and this might be even more important, on religion being just a language (Which he means quiet literally): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKK7tKtBeRc&t=2940